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, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (George Freeman)
It is a great privilege to open the batting for the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Not since the white heat of technology under Harold Wilson have a Government put more money into research. I know the Opposition will welcome this Department.
No sector embodies the opportunity more than space. That is why, in the past 10 years, we are proud to have doubled the size of the sector to £16 billion. We set out a £10 billion plan for the next decade. Through regulatory leadership, insurance and finance in the City, £400 million in earth observation and our cluster programme, we intend to grow this economy all around the country.
Vicky Ford
As a science geek, I love this new Department. The Chelmsford-based company Teledyne e2v is the world leader in space imaging. When the earthquake hit Turkey and Syria, its technology from way up there in space pinpointed the exact location of collapsed businesses, sent rescuers to the spot and saved lives. It also provides crucial monitoring of our planet’s air, oceans and volcanos via the Copernicus programme. The European Space Agency wants to continue to use e2v tech for the next generation of Copernicus satellites, so will the UK continue to participate in Copernicus post-2024 so that companies like e2v can continue to sell to—
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Lady, as much as she might be a science geek, ought to know that questions need to be shorter to give somebody else a chance. Put in for an urgent question. Come on in, Minister.
George Freeman
I pay tribute to Teledyne, which is a great company. That is why we have put £1.8 billion through the European Space Agency, so that little companies like that here in the UK can benefit. On Friday, I visited Space East. We support the cluster it is a part of. Following the Northern Ireland protocol agreement, the Windsor framework, we are actively discussing with the EU the membership of Horizon, Copernicus and Euratom, and funding earth observation programmes in any case.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I welcome anything that focuses on science and technology. It has to be good for our country. On the domestic space industry, I very much welcome what the Minister has just said. However, if we are to grow the sector, we need the next generation of mathematicians, scientists, engineers and computer programmers. What is he doing to ensure that the education and training system brings forward the workforce for tomorrow?
George Freeman
That is an excellent question because skills are key. All around the country we are growing space clusters. Just yesterday we launched Leicester Space East, which is part of the national network. We prioritised skills in the science and technology framework, published last Monday. The UK Space Agency has an active skills programme and we are working with UKspace to set out a map of the jobs that are being created—380,000 in this economy over the next 10 years. We intend to ensure that our higher education and further education sector is supplying them.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Westcott Space Cluster in my constituency is a tour de force of innovative excellence, with a particular focus on ensuring small and medium-sized enterprises can use open access testing facilities, such as through the satellite applications catapult DISC. Does my hon. Friend agree that that open access support is essential? Will he visit Westcott to see it for himself?
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Next month, I will be joining the team from HyImpulse at the SaxaFord spaceport in Shetland to see the hot fire test of its new HyPLOX75 motor. Like many companies in the sector, it is very keen to know when we will get an announcement regarding the space flight phase 2 programme. When will we get that announcement? If we are not going to go ahead with that programme, what will the Government be doing to encourage companies like HyImpulse to do their business in Scotland?
George Freeman
I was in Scotland just a few weeks ago meeting the team behind the Shetland and Sutherland launch. We are committed to launch in both Cornwall and Scotland. We are providing funding to support those two spaceports. I will happily come and visit when I am next up. In Scotland, Buckinghamshire and all around the country, we are growing space clusters to give jobs and opportunities to a new generation.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (George Freeman)
We should all be incredibly proud that nowhere is driving the science and technology revolution more than the north-east economy. It was a powerhouse of the previous industrial revolution and is that again now. I was recently in Newcastle visiting the University of Newcastle and Northumbria University. Spinouts from Newcastle raised £47 million, which is a record. The NETPark North East Technology Park, home to 65 growing companies, has just announced its third phase. It is home to Kromek, one of our top sensor companies. We put £5 million into the Northern Accelerator, a collaboration between six universities, and we have nine catapult centres in the north-east. We are driving the north-east economic renaissance.
Liz Twist
The north-east is a centre of science excellence in offshore wind, life sciences, batteries and much more. We are home to 3,500 tech firms, which bring £2 billion to our local economy. European structural funds provide support to small and medium-sized enterprises to start up, innovate and grow, but all that stops at the end of this month. What will the Minister do to ensure that that support for development continues?
George Freeman
That is an excellent question. We have set out the shared prosperity fund, which is now fully deployed around the country. We have made the commitment to increase domestic research and development outside the greater south-east by 40% between now and 2030, and 50% of Government R&D in the old Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was outside the greater south-east. I do not want to pre-empt the Chancellor, but this afternoon there will be announcements about how we support regional science and technology growth.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Nissan in Sunderland is one of the most productive plants in the whole Nissan network. What meetings has the Minister had with Nissan about its work?
George Freeman
Since arriving in this new portfolio I have not had any meetings with Nissan, but as a Department we are actively picking up the clean tech piece and the future energy technologies piece, and we are working with a range of companies, as well as with the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Across the country, our regions are home to thousands of brilliant science start-ups and spin-outs, but they are being hit by a Tory quadruple whammy: slashing R&D tax credits, leaving with them an average of £100,000 less to spend on research a year; a £120-million cliff-edge loss of European regional development funding; lack of access to capital—the UK has the lowest business investment in the G7; and continuing uncertainty over association with the £95-billion Horizon Europe, the biggest science fund in the world. Which of those barriers to growth for our innovative businesses will the Minister sort out today?
George Freeman
It is a great shame that the shadow spokeswoman is so determined to talk the UK down. The truth is that in the last 10 years, the life sciences sector has grown 1,000%. The north-east, where she is from, is driving that. I do not recognise that the UK sector is being held back in the way that she says, but the Chancellor will say more this afternoon about the tax and business environment. The reason that R&D tax credits are up so much is that our innovation economy has gone from 1.7% of GDP to 2.8%. That is a huge success over the last 10 years, and we are responsible for it.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
We want fantastic connectivity in every part of the UK. We have worked to ensure that a range of low-cost social tariffs are available in 99% of the UK for as little as £10 a month, which is highlighted in our Help for Households campaign and in our work with the Department for Work and Pensions, to make them easier for low-income households to access. We are also working on digital skills with the Department for Education.
Mark Fletcher
While we continue to make progress on this front, could the Minister remind utility companies, particularly British Gas, that not everybody has access to a computer and the internet? It would be helpful if its services reflected that.
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for raising his concerns about British Gas. As the digital infrastructure Minister, I want to ensure that everyone has great access to the internet, but he might be interested to know that suppliers with more than 50,000 customers must allow people to pay energy bills in cash or on prepayment, and talk to them over the phone.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of cryptocurrency technologies on low-income households?
Julia Lopez
I confess that cryptocurrency is not in my portfolio, but I am happy to refer the hon. Lady to a Minister who may be able to answer that.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
Backed by our commitment to increasing public expenditure on research and development to £20 billion by 2024-25, we have launched our plan to cement the UK’s place as a science and technology superpower by 2030, fostering the right conditions for industry, innovation and world-leading research.
Robert Courts
The threat posed by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank posed a huge challenge to science and tech businesses in Oxfordshire. Can the Minister update the House on what she has been doing to help those companies, so that they no longer have to look into the abyss?
Michelle Donelan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the futures of so many companies, and thousands of UK jobs, were at stake. My Department worked tirelessly with the Treasury to facilitate a solution. In doing so, we have protected our life sciences and tech sectors, which not only drive economic growth across the country but deliver life-saving products.
Tim Loughton
Research and development is particularly resource intensive and in need of raising capital, so what are the Government doing to help tech and life science companies raise money on the London markets, which has been few and far between recently?
Michelle Donelan
We are committed to making the UK the most attractive place for innovation and businesses to start and grow. The Treasury has made significant reforms to improve London as a listing destination, and we continue to engage with sectors to secure the most innovative companies in the UK stock exchange.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Weston Park Cancer Centre is one of only four specialist cancer facilities in the country and is at the forefront of groundbreaking research. Investment is critical to its ongoing success in cancer research. I recently met a Health Minister to discuss opportunities to invest in Weston Park. Will the Secretary of State look at what can be done to invest in that incredibly important technological facility?
Michelle Donelan
The Government are putting their money where their mouth is. We are determined to ensure that we are a science and tech superpower by 2030. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his own constituency in detail.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)
The Secretary of State is aware of the global centre of rail excellence being developed in my Neath constituency, which will become the UK’s first net zero rail testing facility, a shared campus for rail innovation, research and development, testing and verification for mainline passenger and freight railways, developing next-generation solutions for the rail sector. The UK Government have pledged £30 million for the GCRE, of which £20 million has been received for the construction phase. Will the Secretary of State reconfirm her Government’s commitment to deliver the remaining £10 million for research and development?
Michelle Donelan
I am unsure as to that exact question, but this Government are investing a great deal—£20 billion by 2024-25. We are determined to ensure that we become a science and tech superpower. This Department has already hit the ground running, produced a science and tech framework, and announced £370 million of additional funding. I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss in detail exactly the point that she was trying to raise.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Last week, Stephen Phipson, head of Make UK, said that Horizon had
“always been one of those areas of the EU budget where the UK gets more out than it puts in”.
While the Secretary of State dithers about whether association is value for money, researchers are leaving the UK for better opportunities abroad, where they can develop rich collaborations and enjoy freedom of movement. The issue needs urgent action, so when will we have a decision on whether the UK will associate to Horizon?
Michelle Donelan
We have not changed our position regarding Horizon and association was in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. We welcome the EU’s recent openness to the discussion, after two years of delay, and I discussed the matter directly with the EU ambassador yesterday.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
My Department’s work will ensure that we are breaking down barriers and levelling the playing field, so that more women can enter STEM jobs in research and innovation. This includes UK Research and Innovation funded STEM ambassadors in schools and, just last week, the Government announced £150,000 funding to support women who are taking career breaks and need skills to get back into STEM careers.
Steven Bonnar
Thanks to Brexit, universities in the UK have lost almost £1 billion in EU funds, with 115 cancelled grants last year alone. Unfortunately, many EU-based workers, such as researchers, now feel unwelcome because of the United Kingdom’s hostility and have followed the funding out of the UK. My constituent Ms McCallum’s long-term partner is French. He is unable to secure a visa to work in our STEM sector. The complexities of the system, and the attached costs, are making it impossible for him to choose to reside in Scotland. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to reduce visa costs for skilled workers, incentivising them to come to the UK and set up home here?
Michelle Donelan
We do not for one moment underestimate just how important it is to attract the best and the brightest to the UK, to work in science and technology and to study here. Just last week, we announced the global talent network for AI. Since 2020, this Government have created the global talent visa. We have created new routes such as the high-potential individual route, and we have the scale-up route. It is this Government who are delivering.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Since our departure from the UK—[Laughter.] Not yet! Since our departure from the EU, the UK needs to forge our own regulatory path to provide certainty to businesses investing in the UK, as well as providing confidence to consumers. However, UK law has failed to tackle the harms, including fake reviews and subscription traps, that we all now encounter online. The Government claim that they are taking action, yet we still have no legislation. Another delay, another broken promise—can the Secretary of State tell us when we can expect to see the digital markets, competition and consumer Bill finally laid before Parliament?
Michelle Donelan
We have committed to delivering it in this Session. Further details will be announced by the Leader of the House in due course.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the quality of the workforce we have in the UK for science and technology? In north Hertfordshire, companies such as Johnson Matthey are doing fantastic work in the environmental field, and neighbouring Stevenage has Airbus and other wonderful businesses. Will the Secretary of State do all she can to get us back into the EU programmes?
Michelle Donelan
It is absolutely because we have the best and the brightest in this country that we can lead the way. I pay tribute to the people who work in my right hon. and learned Friend’s constituency; I look forward to visiting them as soon as I can. As I have said, our position on Horizon has not changed.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Who’s answering? One of you, please—the Secretary of State will do.
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
Since 2016, Innovate UK’s women in innovation in programme has been empowering women in innovation. Since the launch of the campaign, the number of women leading applications for grants to Innovate UK has risen by 70%.
Gill Furniss
Today, women make up less than 30% of the STEM workforce, and the Government’s own findings reveal vast inequalities for women in the R&D sector. The creation of this Department presents a key opportunity to tackle the issue head on, so will the Secretary of State commit to bold action to finally reach a 50:50 STEM workforce?
Michelle Donelan
We made this a key part of our science and technology framework because it is absolutely essential that we are empowering and enabling individuals and creating those skills from the off. UKRI has already funded STEM inspiration programmes such as the STEM ambassadors. There are a lot of initiatives that I could take the hon. Lady through, but obviously we are short on time. We are trying our very best to encourage women and to level the playing field.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade welcomed a trade delegation of more than 40 women who run technology and science businesses in Canada at a business event at Lancaster House yesterday. Does my right hon. Friend agree that support for women in tech across the globe should be an important part of all our international trade work?
Michelle Donelan
I absolutely agree, and I believe that the event yesterday went very well. It is also important that we look at our global role models who are British, such as Professor Dame Angela McLean, who will become the first female Government chief scientific adviser, Dr Nicola Fox and Rosemary Coogan. All those people are flying the flag for women in STEM.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
DSIT was created with a single mission: to drive innovation that will deliver improved public services and new, better-paid jobs and grow the economy. Our Department will do things differently and will be a model for how modern Government Departments should run.
We have hit the ground running. Within just a few weeks of setting up, we have set out a comprehensive framework for science and technology, announced £370 million in new spending and introduced the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill. We have worked with the Chancellor to take decisive action to facilitate a deal to save the UK arm of Silicon Valley Bank, protecting hundreds of jobs. That is an extraordinary amount for any Department to achieve, let alone in just five weeks, and it is just the start of a constant drumbeat.
Siobhan Baillie
I was thrilled that my verification campaign to tackle anonymous abuse was successful with the Government, but I have always been clear that whether someone is verified needs to be made obvious on social media. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is important to social media users? How is the Online Safety Bill progressing through the Lords?
Michelle Donelan
The Bill will soon be in Committee in the House of Lords, and we are committed to ensuring that it is passed before the end of the current Session. I pay tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend has done in this regard. As she knows, we are committed to dealing with abuse, and the Bill places a duty on the largest online services to give adult users the option of verifying themselves.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Three weeks ago, the Secretary of State said that the use of TikTok on Government devices was “a personal choice”. At the weekend, it was reported that there was to be a review of TikTok, and this week the Prime Minister said that he was considering a ban. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether this is indeed a personal choice, or whether TikTok on officials’ devices poses a security risk?
Michelle Donelan
The security of UK data is a priority, and our experts continue to monitor the threats that are posed to that data. The Government’s security group, led by the Cabinet Office, is reviewing the evidence base for action on Government devices. Let me add that what I actually said was that, in terms of the general public, it is absolutely a personal choice, but because we have the strongest data protection laws in the world, we are confident that the public can continue to use it. That is very different from what the hon. Member reported.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
I am pleased to say that premises in Meon Valley are included in our live gigabit procurement for Hampshire, and we expect to award the contract in June this year. We have paused the applications for vouchers to avoid doubling up on public subsidy, but we are happy to look into any specific cases that my hon. Friend wishes to raise via Building Digital UK.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (George Freeman)
Over the last two years, not only have we continued to negotiate in good faith to see through the agreement that we made to join Horizon, Copernicus and Euratom, but we have continued to fund the sector—with just over £1.2 billion, including £370 million this week and £480 million before Christmas—and we look forward to discussing the European associations shortly.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
George Freeman
My right hon. Friend has made an excellent point. It is a very exciting facility, which will see this country lead in the industrial deployment of fusion connectivity to the grid.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Michelle Donelan
I would be delighted to do so. My hon. Friend is a great ambassador for his constituency, always pushing and promoting the great work that is being done.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
According to Tech Nation, Slough, which is the silicon valley of the UK, has experienced a 536% increase in the formation of digital start-ups in the last decade. Given that artificial intelligence is of strategic importance to the UK, why have the Government cut research and development tax credits for small and medium-sized enterprises?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)
The hon. Gentleman will know that a review of R&D tax credits is being conducted. The Chancellor will be speaking later, but because of Tech Nation and the work that has been done over the last decade, we have a great tech ecosystem to build on.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
A year ago, the Department announced that Penistone had been chosen for the UK’s first trial to deliver high-speed broadband through water pipes. The fibre in the water project, which is happening in partnership with Yorkshire Water, is of huge interest to my constituents as it promises the opportunity for rural areas to access high-speed broadband without the cost and inconvenience of major infrastructure works. Will the Minister update me on the progress of the project and tell me how quickly my constituents might see the benefits?
Julia Lopez
Fibre in the water has been a fantastic and innovative project. We expect to complete the research in May, and I hope to be able to update my hon. Friend, who has been doing fantastic work on this.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I point out that live subtitles and the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings are available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
Since I was at this Dispatch Box a week ago, the Government have been delivering for the British people. At the UK-France summit, we signed a new illegal immigration deal to protect our borders. Over the weekend, we facilitated the sale of Silicon Valley Bank at no cost to the taxpayer. We have launched a submarine partnership with Australia and the US, launched our integrated review and boosted our defence budget.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Jess Phillips
I have worked for years with women brought here illegally as sex slaves and raped by 30 men a day. Last week, the Prime Minister tweeted that these victims would be denied access to support from our modern slavery system—a tweet that traffickers will hold up to these women and say, “See, no one will help you.” Before the Prime Minister parrots his prepared answer about increases in the number of people accessing our modern slavery system, let me educate him and everyone else in the House: the biggest increase in the last 10 years has been from the huge increase in British adults and children trafficked for sex and crime within Britain. That is not a number they should be proud of. How exactly will I help to prevent the next woman I meet who has been brought here illegally from being repeatedly raped, if she is, as the Prime Minister tweeted, denied access to our modern slavery system?
The Prime Minister
Just to correct the hon. Lady, it is now a minority of people in our modern slavery referral system that are from the UK. That was not the intention of the legislation when it was introduced. We have a proud record of supporting victims of modern slavery. Thousands of victims are supported every year here in the UK and that will not change as we grip illegal immigration.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to encourage long-term investment in the domestic workforce. We will hear more on that from the Chancellor later this afternoon, but the Department for Work and Pensions is directing support at sectors with labour shortages, such as construction and social care, and our new skills bootcamps are part of a dramatic rebooting of our skills system to support workers to get the skills that they need.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Last summer, the Prime Minister claimed that he wanted to protect free speech and put a stop to no-platforming, so how concerned was he by last week’s campaign by Tory MPs to cancel a broadcaster?
The Prime Minister
As I said at the time, the issues between Gary Lineker and the BBC were for them to resolve. I am very glad they did so and that we can look forward to watching “Match of the Day” on our screens again.
Keir Starmer
The sight of them howling with rage over a tweet and signing green-ink letters in their dozens, desperately trying to cancel a football highlights show, should have been laughable. Instead, it led to a farcical weekend, with the national broadcaster being accused of dancing to the Government’s tune by its own employees. Rather than blame everyone else, why doesn’t the Prime Minister take some responsibility and stand up to his snowflake MPs who are waging war on free speech?
The Prime Minister
It is just the usual political opportunism from the leader of the Labour party. I do not know if he noticed, but first the shadow Attorney General and then the shadow Home Secretary actually criticised the language used in the tweet. But what a surprise: he saw the chance to jump on a political bandwagon and changed his mind. [Hon. Members: “More!”]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not being funny, but I think our constituents want us to get to the Budget. The more you shout, the more you delay questions. Please, my constituents are interested even if yours are not.
Keir Starmer
Conservative Members are calling for more from a Prime Minister who does not understand that we can disagree with what someone says while still defending their right to say it. If he does not understand that, we have a real problem. Does he accept that people’s concerns about the BBC have been made worse because the Government chose to put a Tory donor with no broadcasting experience in charge of the BBC?
The Prime Minister
As he well knows, the BBC chairman was appointed before I became Prime Minister. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The same applies to the Opposition. The Budget matters to the people of this country. They want to hear it. Do not keep questions going longer than need be.
The Prime Minister
There was a rigorous, independent and long-established process. The appointment was supported by expert panel members, as well as by the cross-party Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That process is being independently reviewed by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we should allow the review to conclude.
Keir Starmer
The problem is that the chair of the BBC is not just any old Tory donor. He is so close to the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Fabricant, I want you to be here for the Budget. We do not want cups of tea to come that early.
Keir Starmer
The chair of the BBC is no ordinary Tory donor. He is so close to the Prime Minister that he has been described as the Prime Minister’s mentor. He helped to arrange an £800,000 credit line for the former Prime Minister—a minor detail he forgot to tell the Select Committee that scrutinised his appointment. Does the Prime Minister think his friend’s position is still tenable?
The Prime Minister
As I just said, the independent Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is reviewing what was a rigorous, independent process to appoint the chairman. Instead of prejudging and pre-empting that review, we should let it conclude and wait for the outcome. That is the right way to do things, and that is what the Government will do.
Keir Starmer
When people with links to the Tory party somehow find themselves in senior positions at the BBC, it is important that their impartiality is seen to be beyond reproach, so has the Prime Minister received assurances that no one with links to the Tory party was lobbied by Tory MPs or involved in the decision that saw “Match of the Day” effectively cancelled?
The Prime Minister
As I said, these are matters for the BBC to resolve, and it is right that the BBC, as an important institution, takes its obligations on impartiality seriously. I care about the integrity and impartiality of our institutions—the BBC, but also the civil service—and it is right that those processes carry on properly. What I would say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that there is an independent review, and it is right that the process concludes and that he, I hope, respects the process.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister comes here today with these mealy-mouthed platitudes, pretending that the actions of his party are nothing to do with him, but the whole country saw how he kept quiet and hid behind the playground bullies while they tried to drive someone out simply for disagreeing with them. An impartial public broadcaster, free of Government interference, is a crucial pillar in our country, but is that not put at risk by the cancel culture addicts on his Benches, a BBC leadership that caves into their demands and a Prime Minister too weak to do anything about them?
The Prime Minister
We are not going to take any lectures on cancel culture from the Labour party. We know what this is about, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman has avoided it in six questions: the substance of the issue that lay behind the tweet. What has he done in the past week? The only thing he and his party have done is voted against our Bill to stop the boats—siding with people smugglers over the British people. That is the substance of what has happened. Instead, what have we done? We have concluded a new migration deal with France; we have managed to sign a new defence partnership with our allies, the United States and Australia; we have protected British start-ups; and we have boosted defence spending. That is what delivering for Britain looks like. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I just say that this is the biggest day in the House—[Interruption.] Do you want to carry on cheering? As I have mentioned, there is plenty of room in the Tea Room for those on both sides. Angela Richardson wants to get on with the questions.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I reassure my hon. Friend that we are continuing to invest in the UK’s thriving space sector, including in her constituency. We have a new £6.5 million scheme to support high-impact projects and, as she knows, Space South Central is already the leading regional space cluster in the UK. There is more investment coming, and I look forward to visiting—or the Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) will do so—to make sure that her companies get the recognition they deserve.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
On Monday, as households in Scotland were awakening to freezing temperatures, they were met with the news that the electricity grid had been upgraded in order to meet the power demands of the Prime Minister’s new swimming pool. So may I ask him: was it while he was taking a leisurely dip that he decided to leave households drowning in their energy bills?
The Prime Minister
Thanks to the actions of this Government, we have provided more than £1,300 to help families with their energy bills over the last year. I do not want to pre-empt what the Chancellor is going to say later, but let me say that this is a Government who are committed to continuing to help people with the cost of living, and that is what people will hear later on.
Stephen Flynn
You have got to wonder what planet the Prime Minister is on, because for households in Scotland energy prices have not been frozen at two and a half grand—indeed, the average bill in Scotland has been closer to £3,500, with a near tripling in just under two years. Worse than that, the Chancellor is about to get to his feet and announce that the £400 energy rebate is about to be scrapped for everyone, not just in Scotland but right across these isles. Is it not the case that the Tories are not freezing energy bills; they are looking to freeze households?
The Prime Minister
The Government are delivering for people across the United Kingdom. Energy bills have been our priority, which is why over £1,000 of support is benefiting households in every part of our country. The hon. Gentleman talks about delivery. We now know that because of the SNP, the trains do not run on time, the police are at breaking point and the NHS in Scotland has experienced its longest ever waiting lists. That is not even my assessment—it is what we learned in the SNP’s leadership debate last week.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend about the incredible benefit that small businesses and independent retailers bring to our high streets and economy. I congratulate the team at Anasma Greek Bakery on winning the competition. I know that they will feel reassured by their Government’s investment in my hon. Friend’s constituency through the town deal and, of course, funding from the future high streets fund.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Just ahead of St Patrick’s day, may I thank the Prime Minister for his recent deep engagement with Northern Ireland, and in particular the conclusion of the Windsor framework? I hope we will see the Executive restored shortly. However, that Executive are facing a spiral of budget cuts, which will prevent them from transforming public services on an invest-to-save basis and from investing in a prosperity agenda. Will the Prime Minister and the Chancellor therefore work with the Northern Ireland parties on a financial package to transform Northern Ireland, accepting the need for strict conditions and a real focus on key areas such as health, education, skills and infrastructure?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and his party for their engagement in the run-up to the Windsor framework; it was helpful and I appreciated his constructive involvement. My right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary has been working closely, and will work closely, with all Northern Irish parties, leading discussions on a wide range of issues, including the public finances, because I believe what the hon. Gentleman believes: that the people of Northern Ireland need and deserve effective, accountable and devolved government up and running as quickly as possible. I hope those talks can be constructive in leading to that aim.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the misery being inflicted on Londoners by the incompetent running of TfL. It is worth bearing in mind that not only does the Labour party vote against our minimum service levels, which will provide respite for the hard-working British public, but since the pandemic the Mayor of London has received £6 billion of additional funding for transport services—so for us to be in the situation that we find ourselves in today is simply unacceptable.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We are investing record sums in NHS capital to upgrade dozens of hospitals across the country, but in particular to build 40 new hospitals. We are committed to a new hospital scheme at West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust as part of that programme. The programme is working closely with the trust on its plans, in line with the approach we have taken nationally.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that agritech—in particular, the excellent work of the Crop and Environment Research Centre at Harper Adams University in Shropshire—is a vital part of the UK economy? I know that he has a busy schedule, but will he dispatch the Secretary of State to come and look at that research centre, and in particular to see the women at Harper Adams leading science and maths—and, indeed, leading the world?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Harper Adams is a fantastic example of the type of innovation and skills provision that we need in our agritech sector. That is why I am pleased that, post Brexit, we can introduce the gene editing Bill, which will help to drive productivity and efficiency in our agricultural sector even further.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As I said in a previous answer, the Government are committed to the new hospitals programme; we have committed record sums to NHS capital, not just for that programme, but for smaller-scale upgrades across the country. The conversations with her trust and others are happening in the same way across the country and I look forward to those conversations continuing.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Government at all levels, national and local, should always strive to deliver value for money for the taxpayer, particularly in a cost of living crisis. Therefore, does the Prime Minister share my astonishment that my local Labour-led Westminster Council voted last week to raise council tax by 2% and council housing tenants’ rent by 7%, and increase allowances for its senior councillors by up to a staggering 45%? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Prime Minister, you have got to answer. I do not know who is giving you advice, but take it from the Chair: please answer.
The Prime Minister
That is disappointing to see. I think it has been just under a year that the now Labour-run Westminster Council has put its own councillors’ pay ahead of everything else. I cannot quite believe the figures we heard from my hon. Friend—a staggering, eye-watering 45% pay increase when people across our country and abroad are suffering cost of living pressures. It is clear that it is only Conservative-run councils that deliver for their residents.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are investing £3 billion in NHS dentistry. Because of the reforms to the contract, there will be about 10% more activity this year above contracted levels. There are 500 more dentists in the NHS today and, I think, almost a 45% increase in the amount of dental care being provided to children.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Five years ago, £40 million of public funds were set aside for brain tumour research, but recent Government figures suggest that as little as a quarter of that money has been deployed to researchers. The mechanism to distribute research funding effectively is broken. As a result, the brain tumour community has not seen the breakthroughs in treatment and survival rates that many of us believe they should have. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that a unique and complex disease needs a unique response, and, in Brain Tumour Awareness Month, will he make brain cancer a critical research priority across all cancers?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful and powerful question. He is absolutely right about the importance of expediting medical research so that we can deliver better care for the people affected. I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister so we can ensure that that funding gets out to the people who need it and we can bring relief to them as quickly as we can.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to meet the hon. and learned Lady. She will know that we take our obligations to those who helped and served in Afghanistan extremely seriously, through both the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. We have already brought 20,000 refugees from Afghanistan to the UK and worked closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and others on those legal routes, but I would be happy to meet her to ensure that we are targeting our compassion and generosity on the people who most need it and not those who are coming here illegally.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
At the height of the pandemic, centre-assessed grades allowed our young people to move forward with their lives. Lara, my very brave young constituent, is now battling cancer and will not sit the GCSE exams that she has worked so hard for, and could be left with only a certificate of recognition. In exceptional circumstances such as these, why can the same principle not apply? Would my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister look compassionately at this situation?
The Prime Minister
May I start by sending my best wishes to Lara and thanking my hon. Friend for raising her case in Parliament? Of course, it is incredibly upsetting and challenging for children and young people to be diagnosed with a serious illness, especially so close to their exams. There are allowances that are made, and in the first instance students will speak to their school or college to make those reasonable adjustments, but I will be happy to ensure that we work with my hon. Friend to find a resolution in Lara’s case.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I agree with the hon. Lady: literacy and numeracy are critical for adults to be able to participate in society and the economy. I am happy to praise Read Easy for the work that it does, and I look forward to learning more about it. The best way to solve this problem is to ensure that our young children get the reading skills, training and education that they need. I am so pleased that, because of the reforms introduced by previous Conservative Governments, particularly on phonics, we have now marched up the international league table and have some of the best results for reading that we have seen in a very long time.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
More than a quarter of the economic output of this country is in sectors overseen by some of our major regulators, such as Ofwat and Ofgem, but historically there has been little in the way of oversight to say whether they are doing a good or bad job, or whether they are achieving international best practice. Can the Prime Minister look at what he can do to address that historical oversight and enable regulators to play their part in ensuring economic growth?
The Prime Minister
As always, my hon. Friend makes a very thoughtful point. He is absolutely right about the importance of our regulators in driving growth and competitive investment in our economy. I know that the Chancellor will have something to say about this later, but my hon. Friend should rest assured that we will keep at it to ensure that there is accountability and oversight of our regulators. We all want to see more growth in our economy, and they need to play their part in delivering it.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are actually delivering the biggest rail investment since the Victorian era. I would just gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that, compared with when Labour was last in office, the investment going into the north is 30% higher every single year under this Conservative Government. We are delivering for communities across the north, with more trains, buses, stations and roads, because a Conservative Government do not just talk about it; they get on and deliver it.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I hope very much that, later today, we will hear news of help for motorists and small businesses, but motorists and small businesses in Bromley and the rest of outer London are going to be hard hit later this year by the Mayor of London’s stealth tax in the form of an ultra-low emission charge that will cost money and jobs. Is it not time to revisit the Local Government Act and revise it so that such charges can only be imposed on London boroughs with the consent of the boroughs themselves?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is right that the Mayor of London should listen to the voices of commuters, families and small businesses as he inflicts his damaging tax on them. This Government will always be on the side of those people and this Budget will deliver for them too.
Ways and Means
Financial Statement and Budget Report
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I remind hon. Members that copies of the Budget resolutions will be available to them from the Vote Office in the Members Lobby at the end of the Chancellor’s statement, and of course online. It might also be helpful for some people who are following our proceedings to know that British Sign Language interpretation of the statement, which will continue until the end of the speech of the spokesman for the Scottish National party, is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv—advert. Live subtitling will also be available for the Chancellor’s speech and the remainder of today’s debate.
I need hardly remind hon. Members—but I will do, for good measure—that they may not make interventions during the Chancellor’s statement, or indeed during the reply of the Leader of the Opposition, or even the reply of the spokesman for the Scottish National party. I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
Madam Deputy Speaker, in the face of enormous challenges, I report today on a British economy which is proving the doubters wrong. In the autumn, we took difficult decisions to deliver stability and sound money. Since mid-October, 10-year gilt rates have fallen, debt servicing costs are down, mortgage rates are lower and inflation has peaked. The International Monetary Fund says our approach means the UK economy is on the right track, but we remain vigilant and will not hesitate to take whatever steps are necessary for economic stability.
Today, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that, because of changing international factors and the measures I take, the UK will not now enter a technical recession this year. It forecasts we will meet the Prime Minister’s priorities to halve inflation, reduce debt and get the economy growing. We are following the plan and the plan is working. But that is not all we have done. In the face of a cost of living crisis, we have demonstrated our values by protecting struggling families with a £2,500 energy price guarantee, one-off support and the uprating of benefits with inflation. Taken together, these measures are worth £94 billion over this year and next—one of the largest support packages in Europe. That averages over £3,300 of cost of living help for every household in the country.
Today, we deliver the next part of our plan: a Budget for growth. Not just the growth that comes when you emerge from a downturn, but long-term, sustainable, healthy growth that pays for our NHS and schools, finds jobs for young people and provides a safety net for older people, all while making our country one of the most prosperous in the world—prosperity with a purpose. That is why growth is one of the Prime Minister’s five priorities for our country. I deliver that today by removing obstacles that stop businesses investing, by tackling labour shortages that stop them recruiting, by breaking down barriers that stop people working and by harnessing British ingenuity to make us a science and technology superpower.
I start with the forecasts produced by Richard Hughes and his team at the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, whom I thank for their diligent work. They have looked in detail at the Prime Minister’s economic priorities. The first of those is to halve inflation. Inflation destroys the value of hard-earned pay, deters investment and foments industrial strife. This Government remain steadfast in our support for the independent Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England as it takes action to return inflation to the 2% target. Despite continuing global instability, the OBR reports today that inflation in the UK will fall from 10.7% in the final quarter of last year to 2.9% by the end of 2023. That is more than halving inflation. High inflation is the root cause of the strikes we have seen in recent months. We will continue to work hard to settle those disputes, but only in a way that does not fuel inflation. Part of the fall in inflation predicted by the OBR happens because of additional measures I take today.
First, I recognise that even though wholesale energy prices have been falling, there is still enormous pressure on family finances. Some people remain in real distress and we should always stand ready to help where we can. So after listening to representations from Martin Lewis and other experts, I today confirm that the energy price guarantee will remain at £2,500 for the next three months. This means the £2,500 cap for the typical household will remain in place when energy prices remain high, ahead of an expected fall in prices from July. This measure will save the average family a further £160 on top of the energy support measures already announced.
The second measure concerns over 4 million households on prepayment meters. They are often the poorest households, but they currently pay more than comparable customers on direct debit. Ofgem has already agreed with suppliers a temporary suspension of forced installations of prepayment meters, but today I go further and confirm that we will bring their charges in line with comparable direct debit charges. Under a Conservative Government, the energy premium paid by our poorest households is coming to an end.
Next, I have listened to representations from my hon. Friends the Members for East Devon (Simon Jupp), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) about the risk to community facilities, especially swimming pools, caused by high costs. When times are tough, such facilities matter even more. [Interruption.] Today, I am—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We want to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is actually saying. Enough.
Jeremy Hunt
Today I am providing a £63 million fund to keep our public leisure centres and pools afloat. I have also heard from the charities Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and his Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), about the brilliant work that third sector organisations are doing to help people struggling in tough times. They can often reach people in need that central or local government cannot, so I will give his Department £100 million to support thousands of local charities and community organisations to do their fantastic work.
I also note the personal courage of one of my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), in talking about the tragedy of suicide and the importance of preventing it. We already invest a lot in this area, but I will assign an extra £10 million over the next two years—nearly a million pounds for every year that he has been in Parliament—to help the voluntary sector play an even bigger role in stopping more families experiencing that intolerable heartache.
My penultimate cost of living measure concerns one of our other most treasured community institutions, the great British pub. In December, I extended the alcohol duty freeze until 1 August, after which duties will go up in line with inflation in the usual way. But today I will do something that was not possible when we were in the EU and significantly increase the generosity of draught relief, so that from 1 August the duty on draught products in pubs will be up to 11p lower than the duty in supermarkets. It is a differential a Conservative Government will maintain as part of a new Brexit pubs guarantee. [Hon. Members: “More.”] British ale is warm, but the duty on a pint is frozen. And even better, thanks to the Windsor framework negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that change will now apply to every pub in Northern Ireland.
Finally, I have heard the representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) and The Sun newspaper about the impact on motorists of the planned 11p rise in fuel duty. I notice the party opposite called for a freeze on this duty. Somehow they forgot to tell the British people they have voted against every single fuel duty freeze for the last 12 years. Because inflation remains high, I have decided now is not the right time to uprate fuel duty with inflation or increase the duty, so here is what I am going to do: for a further 12 months I am going to maintain the 5p cut and I am going to freeze fuel duty too. That saves the average driver £100 next year and around £200 since the 5p cut was introduced.
Our energy price guarantee, fuel duty and duty on a pint, all frozen in today’s Budget. That does not just help families: it helps the economy too, because their combined impact reduces CPI inflation by nearly three quarters of a per cent. this year, lowering inflation when it is particularly high.
I now turn to the Prime Minister’s second priority, which is to reduce debt. Here too our plan is on track. Underlying debt is forecast to be 92.4% of GDP next year, then 97.3%, 94.6%, 94.8%, before falling to 94.6% in 2027-28. We are meeting the debt priority. And with a buffer of £6.5 billion, it means we are meeting our fiscal rule to have debt falling as a percentage of GDP by the fifth year of the forecast.
As a proportion of GDP, our debt remains lower than the USA, Canada, France, Italy and Japan and, because of the decisions I take today and the improved outlook for public finances, underlying debt in five years’ time is now forecast to be nearly 3 percentage points of GDP lower than it was in the autumn. That means more money for our public services and a lower burden for future generations—deeply held Conservative values which we put into practice today.
At the autumn statement, I also announced that public sector net borrowing must be below 3% of GDP over the same period. The OBR confirmed today that we are meeting that rule, with a buffer of £39.2 billion. In fact our deficit falls in every single year of the forecast, with borrowing falling from 5.1% of GDP in ’23-24, to 3.2%, to 2.8%, to 2.2% and 1.7% in ’27-28.
Even better, in the final two years of the forecast, our current budget is in surplus, meaning we only borrow for investment and not for day-to-day spending. Day-to-day departmental spending will grow at 1% a year on average in real terms after ’24-25 until the end of the forecast period. Capital plans are maintained at the same level set at the autumn statement. We will uprate tobacco duty and we will freeze the gross gaming duty yield bands. We are also maintaining the starting rate for savings and ISA subscription limits, and we will bring forward a range of measures to tackle promoters of tax avoidance schemes. Taken together, today’s measures lead to a slightly lower overall tax burden for the rest of the Parliament compared with the OBR’s autumn forecast. Other parties run out of money, but a Conservative Government are reducing borrowing and improving our public finances. By doing so, we are on track to halve inflation, get debt falling and grow our economy, which I turn to next.
Growth is the Prime Minister’s third priority and the focus of today’s Budget. Thirteen years ago, we inherited an economy that had crashed—[Interruption.] Opposition Members might want to listen to this, because since 2010, we have grown more than major countries like France, Italy or Japan, and about the same as Europe’s largest economy, Germany. We have halved unemployment, we have cut inequality and we have reduced the number of workless households by 1 million.
For the first time ever, because of rises in tax thresholds made by successive Conservative Chancellors, people in our country can earn £1,000 a month without paying a penny of tax or national insurance. The Labour party opposed those tax reductions, but they have helped lift 2 million people out of absolute poverty, after housing costs, including 400,000 pensioners and 500,000 children. That averages 80 pensioners and 100 children lifted out of poverty for every single day we have been in office.
Today, we face the future with extraordinary potential. The World Bank said that of all big European countries, we are the best place to do business. Global chief executives say that apart from America and China, we are the best country to invest in. We became the second country in the world to have a stock of foreign direct investment worth $2 trillion, and London has just pipped New York and 53 other global cities to be the best place in the world for female entrepreneurs.
Declinists are wrong about our country for another reason, which is our strength in new industries that will shape this century. Over the last 13 years, under Conservative leadership, we have become the world’s third trillion-dollar tech economy after the US and China. We have built the largest life sciences sector in Europe, producing a covid vaccine that saved 6 million lives and a treatment that saved 1 million more.
Our film and TV industry has become Europe’s largest, with our creative industries growing at twice the rate of the economy; our advanced manufacturing industries produce around half the world’s large civil aircraft wings; and thanks to a clean energy miracle, we have become a world leader in offshore wind. Other parties talk about a green energy revolution, so I gently remind them that nearly 90% of our solar power was installed in the last 13 years—showing it is the Conservatives who fix the roof when the sun is shining.
Let us turn now to what the OBR says about our growth prospects. In November, it expected that the UK economy would enter recession in 2022 and contract by 1.4% in 2023. That left many families feeling concerned about the future. But today, the OBR forecasts we will not enter a recession at all this year, with a contraction of just 0.2%. After this year, the UK economy will grow in every single year of the forecast period, by 1.8% in 2024, then 2.5%, 2.1%, and 1.9% in 2027. It also expects the unemployment rate to rise by less than one percentage point to 4.4%, with 170,000 fewer people out of work compared with its autumn forecast.
That return to growth has direct consequences for our role on the global stage. I am proud that we are giving the brave people of Ukraine more military support than anyone else in Europe. On Monday, we were able to go even further, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announcing a £5 billion package of funding for the Ministry of Defence—an additional £2 billion next year and £3 billion the year after. Today, following representations from our persuasive Defence Secretary, I confirm that we will add a total of £11 billion to our defence budget over the next five years, and it will be nearly 2.25% of GDP by 2025.We were the first large European country to commit to 2% of GDP for defence, and we will now raise that to 2.5% as soon as fiscal and economic circumstances allow.
Following representations from the equally persuasive Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, I am today also increasing support for our brave ex-servicemen and women. We will provide a package worth over £30 million to increase the capacity of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, support veterans with injuries returning from their service and increase the availability of veteran housing.
But to be Europe’s biggest defender of democracy, we must build Europe’s most dynamic economy. That means tackling our long-standing productivity issues, including two in particular which I address today: lower business investment and higher economic inactivity than other countries. Too often companies struggle to recruit, and even when they do, output per employee is lower. So today I set out the four pillars of our industrial strategy to address these issues. As colleagues will know from my Bloomberg speech, they all conveniently start with the letter E: enterprise, employment, education and everywhere. I start with everywhere—[Interruption.] Well, Opposition Members may not want to level up growth across the United Kingdom, but we do.
This Government were elected on a mandate to level up. We have already allocated nearly £4 billion to over 200 projects across the country through the first two rounds of the levelling-up fund. A third round will follow. Since we started focusing on levelling up, 70% of the growth in salaried jobs has come from outside London and the south-east, and today we take further steps. Canary Wharf and the Liverpool docks were two outstanding regeneration projects that happened under a previous Conservative Government. I pay tribute to Lord Heseltine for making them happen, because they transformed the lives of thousands of people. They showed what is possible when entrepreneurs, Government and local communities come together.
So today I announce that we will deliver 12 new investment zones—12 potential Canary Wharfs. In England, we have identified the following areas as having the potential to host one: west midlands, Greater Manchester, the north-east, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, east midlands, Teesside and, once again, Liverpool. There will also be at least one in each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To be chosen, each area must identify a location where it can offer a bold and imaginative partnership between local government and a university or research institute in a way that catalyses new innovation clusters. If the application is successful, it will have access to £80 million of support for a range of interventions, including skills, infrastructure, tax reliefs and business rates retention.
Working together with our formidable Levelling Up Secretary, I also want to give some further support to levelling up areas under the E of everywhere. First, I will invest over £200 million in high-quality local regeneration projects across England, including the regeneration of Tipton town centre and the Marsden New Mills redevelopment scheme. I am also announcing a further £161 million for regeneration projects in mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority, and I will make over £400 million available for new levelling-up partnerships in areas that include Redcar and Cleveland, Blackburn, Oldham, Rochdale, Mansfield, south Tyneside and Bassetlaw.
Having listened to the case for better local transport infrastructure from many hon. Members, I can announce a second round of the city region sustainable transport settlements, allocating £8.8 billion over the next five-year funding period. Following a wet then cold winter, I have also received particularly strong representations from my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) and for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), as well as Councillor Peter Martin from my own constituency, about the curse of potholes. The spending review allocated £500 million every year to the potholes fund, but today I have decided to increase that fund by a further £200 million next year to help local communities tackle this problem.
For Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, this Budget delivers not only a new investment zone but an additional £320 million for the Scottish Government, £180 million for the Welsh Government and £130 million for the Northern Ireland Executive as a result of Barnett consequentials. On top of that, in Scotland I can announce up to £8.6 million of targeted funding for the Edinburgh festivals as well as £1.5 million funding to repair the Cloddach bridge. I will provide £20 million of funding for the Welsh Government to restore the Holyhead breakwater, and in Northern Ireland I am allocating up to £3 million to extend the tackling paramilitarism programme and up to £40 million to extend further and higher education participation.
But for levelling up to truly succeed, we need to unleash the civic entrepreneurship that is only possible when elected local leaders are able to fund and deliver solutions to their own challenges. That means giving them responsibility for local economic growth and the benefit from the upside when it happens. So this Government will consult on transferring responsibilities for local economic development from local enterprise partnerships to local authorities from April 2024.
I will also boost Mayors’ financial autonomy by agreeing multi-year single settlements for the west midlands and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority in the next spending review, something I intend to roll out for all mayoral areas over time. I have also agreed a new long-term commitment so that they can retain 100% of their business rates, something I also hope to expand to other areas. Investment zones, regeneration projects, levelling-up partnerships, local transport infrastructure and business rates retention—more control for local communities over their economic destiny, so we will level up wealth and opportunity everywhere.
Today’s priority is the Prime Minister’s promise to grow the economy. We have talked about making that growth happen everywhere, so I now move on to my second E—enterprise. We need to be—[Interruption.] Well, this has never been something of interest to the Labour party, but the Conservatives will not rest until we are Europe’s most dynamic enterprise economy, and under a Conservative Government that is exactly what has been happening. Since 2010, we have 1 million more businesses in the UK—a bigger increase than Germany, France or Italy—but I want another million and another million after that. So today I bring forward enterprise measures in these three areas: to lower business taxes, to reduce energy costs and to support our growth industries.
Let us start with business taxation. Conservatives know the importance of a competitive tax regime. We already have lower levels of business taxation than France, Germany, Italy or Japan, but I want us to have the most pro-business, pro-enterprise tax regime anywhere. Even after the corporation tax rise this April, we will have the lowest headline rate in the G7—lower than any period under the last Labour Government. Only 10% of companies will pay the full 25% rate, but even at 19% our corporation tax did not incentivise investment as effectively as countries with higher headline rates. The result is less capital investment and lower productivity than countries like France and Germany.
We have already taken measures to address this. For larger businesses, we had the super deduction, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which ends this month. For smaller businesses, we increased the annual investment allowance to £1 million, meaning 99% of all businesses can deduct the full value of all their investment from that year’s taxable profits. If the super deduction was allowed to end without a replacement, we would have fallen down the international league tables on tax competitiveness and damaged growth. As a Conservative, I could not allow that to happen.
Today, I can announce that we will introduce a new policy of full capital expensing for the next three years, with an intention to make it permanent as soon as we can responsibly do so. That means that every single pound a company invests in IT equipment, plant or machinery can be deducted in full and immediately from taxable profits. It is a corporation tax cut worth an average of £9 billion a year for every year that it is in place, and its impact on the economy will be huge. The OBR says that it will increase business investment by 3% for every year that it is in place. This decision makes us the only major European country with full expensing and gives us the joint most generous capital allowance regime of any advanced economy.
I understand that the Labour party is reviewing business taxes. Let me save it the bother. It puts them up, and we cut them.
I also want to make our taxes more competitive in our life science and creative industry sectors. In the autumn, I said I would return with a more robust research and development tax credit scheme for smaller research-intensive companies. Today, I am introducing an enhanced credit which means that if a qualifying small or medium-sized business spends 40% or more of its total expenditure on R&D, it will be able to claim a credit worth £27 for every £100 that it spends. That means an eligible cancer drug company spending £2 million on R&D will receive over £500,000 to help it to develop breakthrough treatments. That is a £1.8 billion package of support helping 20,000 cutting-edge companies who, day by day, are turning Britain into a science superpower.
The Government’s audio-visual tax reliefs have helped to make our film and TV industry the biggest in Europe. Only last month, Pinewood announced an expansion which will bring another 8,000 jobs to the UK. To give even more momentum to this critical sector, I will introduce an expenditure credit with a rate of 34% for film, high-end television and video games, and 39% for the animation and children’s TV sectors. I will maintain the qualifying threshold for high-end television at £1 million. Because our theatres, orchestras and museums do such a brilliant job at attracting tourists to London and the UK, I will extend for another two years their current 45% and 50% reliefs.
An enterprise economy needs low taxes, but it also needs cheap and reliable energy. We have already announced billions of support to help businesses reduce their energy bills through the energy bills relief scheme and the energy bills discount scheme. We have appointed Dame Alison Rose, chief executive of NatWest, to co-chair our national energy efficiency taskforce and help deliver our national ambition to reduce energy use by 15%. To support her efforts, I will extend the climate change agreement scheme for two years to allow eligible businesses £600 million of tax relief on energy efficiency measures. But the long-term solution is not subsidy, but security. That means investing in domestic sources of energy that fall outside Putin’s or any autocrat’s control. We are world leaders in renewable energy, so today I want to develop another plank of our green economy: carbon capture usage and storage. I am allocating up to £20 billion of support for the early development of CCUS, starting with projects from our east coast to Merseyside to north Wales, paving the way for CCUS everywhere across the UK as we approach 2050. That will support up to 50,000 jobs, attract private sector investment and help capture 20 to 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year by 2030.
We have increased the proportion of electricity generated from renewables from under 10% when we came into office to nearly 40%, but because the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine—even under the Conservatives—we will need another critical source of cheap and reliable energy, and that is nuclear. There have been no more powerful advocates for this than my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) and for Workington (Mark Jenkinson). They rightly say that increasing nuclear capacity is vital to meet our net zero obligations. To encourage private sector investment into our nuclear programme, I today confirm that, subject to consultation, nuclear power will be classed as environmentally sustainable in our green taxonomy, giving it access to the same investment incentives as renewable energy.
Alongside that will come more public investment. In the autumn statement, I announced the first state-financed investment in nuclear for a generation, a £700 million investment in Sizewell C. Today, I can announce two further commitments to deliver our nuclear ambitions. First, following representations from our energetic Energy Security Secretary, I am announcing the launch of Great British Nuclear, which will bring down costs and provide opportunities across the nuclear supply chain to help provide one quarter of our electricity by 2050. [Interruption.] It is so good to hear that the Labour party is in favour of nuclear energy. [Interruption.] It is just a shame that it never did any. Secondly, I am launching the first competition for small modular reactors. It will be completed by the end of this year and if demonstrated as viable we will co-fund this exciting new technology.
Finally, under the E of enterprise, I come to our innovation economy: a central area of national competitive advantage for the United Kingdom. Over the weekend, I worked night and day with the Prime Minister and the Governor of the Bank of England to protect the deposits of thousands of our most cutting-edge companies. We successfully secured the sale of the UK arm of Silicon Valley Bank to HSBC, so the future of those companies is now safe in the hands of Europe’s biggest and one of its most creditworthy banks. But those events show that we need to build a larger, more diverse financing system, where the benefits of investment in high-growth firms are available to more investors. I will return in the autumn statement with a plan to deliver that. It will include measures to unlock productive investment from defined contribution pension funds and other sources, make the London Stock Exchange a more attractive place to list, and complete our response to the challenges created by the US Inflation Reduction Act.
When it comes to our innovation industries, however, I want to make progress on two areas today. Nigel Lawson made the City of London one of the world’s top financial centres by competitive deregulation. With our Brexit autonomy, we can do the same for our high-growth sectors. Today, I want to reform the regulations around medicines and medical technologies. We are lucky to have, in the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, one of the most respected drugs regulators in the world—indeed, the very first anywhere to license a covid vaccine. From 2024, it will move to a different model, which will allow rapid, often near-automatic sign-off for medicines and technologies already approved by trusted regulators in other parts of the world such as the United States, Europe and Japan. At the same time, it will set up a swift new approval process for the most cutting-edge medicines and devices to ensure that the UK becomes a global centre for their development. With an extra £10 million of funding over the next two years, they will put in place the quickest, simplest regulatory approval in the world for companies seeking rapid market access. We are proud of the life science sector, which received more inward investment than any in Europe last year. Today’s change will make the UK an even more exciting place to invest, using our Brexit freedoms and speeding up access for NHS patients to the very newest drugs.
Today, with our talented Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary, I also take measures to strengthen our position in artificial intelligence, where the UK hosts one third of all European companies. I am accepting all nine of the digital technology recommendations made by Sir Patrick Vallance in the review that I asked him to do in the autumn statement. I can report to the House that we will launch an AI sandbox to trial new, faster approaches to help innovators get cutting-edge products to market. We will work at pace with the Intellectual Property Office to provide clarity on IP rules so that generative AI companies can access the material they need. We will ask Sir Patrick’s successor, Dame Angela McLean, to report before the summer on options around the growth duty for regulators.
Because AI needs computing horsepower, I today commit around £900 million of funding to implement the recommendations of the independent “Future of Compute” review for an exascale computer. The power needed by AI’s complex algorithms can also be provided by quantum computing, so today we publish a quantum strategy, which will set out our vision to be a world-leading quantum-enabled economy by 2033, with a research and innovation programme totalling £2.5 billion.
I also want to encourage the best AI research to happen in the UK, so will award a prize of £1 million every year for the next 10 years to the person or team that does the most groundbreaking British AI research. The world’s first stored-program computer was built at the University of Manchester in 1948, and was known as the Manchester baby. Seventy-five years on, the baby has grown up, so I will call this new national AI award the Manchester prize in its honour. We want the UK to be the best place in Europe for companies to locate, invest and grow, so today’s enterprise measures strengthen our technology and life science sectors, invest in energy security and—for three years, but I hope permanently—cut corporation tax by £9 billion a year, to give us the best investment incentives of any advanced economy.
An enterprise economy can only grow if it can hire the people it needs, which brings me to my third pillar after everywhere and enterprise. [Interruption.] I said it was a growth budget. We are talking about the E of employment. I am going to talk about a difficult topic for the Labour party. Brexit was a decision by the British people to change our economic model. In that historic vote, our country decided to move from a model based on unlimited low-skill migration to one based on high wages and high skills. Today, we show how we will deliver that, with a major set of reforms. The OBR says that it is the biggest positive supply-side intervention that it has ever recognised in its forecast.
We have around 1 million vacancies in the economy but, excluding students, more than 7 million adults of working age are not in work. That is a potential pool of seven people for every vacancy. Conservatives believe that work is a virtue. We agree with the road haulage king Eddie Stobart, who said:
“The only place success comes before work is the dictionary.”
Today, I bring forward reforms to remove the barriers that stop people who want to work from doing so. I start with over 2 million people who are inactive due to a disability or long-term sickness. Thanks to the reforms courageously introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), the number of disabled people in work has risen by 2 million since 2013. But even after that, we could fill half the vacancies in the economy with people who say that they would like to work, despite being inactive due to sickness or disability. With Zoom, Teams and new working models that make it easier to work from home, that is possible now more than ever.
For that reason, the ever-diligent Work and Pensions Secretary today takes the next step in his groundbreaking work on tackling economic inactivity. I thank him for that, and today we publish a White Paper on disability benefits reform. It is the biggest change to our welfare system in a decade. His plans will abolish the work capability assessment in Great Britain and will separate benefit entitlement from an individual’s ability to work. As a result, disabled benefit claimants will always be able to seek work without fear of losing financial support.
Today, I am going further by announcing that, after listening to representations from the Centre for Social Justice and others, in England and Wales we will fund a new programme called universal support. This is a new, voluntary employment scheme for disabled people, where the Government will spend up to £4,000 a person to help them find appropriate jobs and put in place the support that they need. It will fund 50,000 places every single year.
We also want to help those who are forced to leave work because of a health condition such as back pain or a mental health issue. We should give them support before they end up leaving their job, so working with our Health Secretary, I am also announcing a £400-million plan to increase the availability of mental health and musculoskeletal resources, and expand the individual placement and support scheme. Because occupational health provided by employers has a key role to play, I will also bring forward two new consultations on how to improve its availability and double the funding for the small company subsidy pilot.
Another group that deserves particular attention is children in care. They, too, should be given all possible help to make a normal working life possible when they reach adulthood. Often, they depend on foster families, who do a brilliant job, so today I am nearly doubling the qualifying care relief threshold to £18,140 which will give a tax cut to a qualifying carer worth an average of £450 a year. I will also increase the funding that we provide to the Staying Close programme by 50%, to help more care leavers into employment, and I will support young people with special educational needs and disabilities with a £3-million pilot expansion of the Department for Education’s supported internship programme, to help those people to transition from education into the workplace. No civilised society can ignore the contribution that can be made by those with challenging family circumstances, a long-term illness or a disability, so today we remove the barriers that we can, with reforms that strengthen our society as well as our economy.
The next set of employment reforms affects those on universal credit without a health condition, who are looking for work or on low earnings. There are more than 2 million jobseekers in this group—more than enough to fill every vacancy in the economy. Independence is always better than dependence. [Interruption.] With some exceptions, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is why a Conservative Government believe that those who can work, should. Sanctions will be applied more rigorously to those who fail to meet strict work search requirements or choose not to take up a reasonable job offer. For those working low hours, we will increase the administrative earnings threshold from the equivalent of 15 hours to 18 hours at national living wage for an individual claimant, meaning that anyone working below that level will receive more work coach support, alongside a more intensive conditionality regime.
The next group of workers I want to support are those aged over 50. My younger officials have termed these people “older” workers, although as a 56-year-old I prefer the term “experienced”. Fully 3.5 million people of pre-retirement age over 50 are not part of the labour force—an increase of 320,000 since before the pandemic. We now have the 23rd highest inactivity rate for over 55s in the OECD. If we matched the rate of Sweden, we would add more than 1 million people to our national labour force.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I say this not to flatter you, but older people are the most skilled and experienced people we have. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] No country can thrive if it turns its back on such a wealth of talent and ability. But for too many, turning 50 is a moment of anxiety about the cliff edge of retirement rather than a moment of anticipation about another two decades of fulfilment. I know this myself. After I turned 50, I was relegated to the Back Benches and planned for a quiet life, but instead I decided to set an example by embarking on a new career in finance.
Jeremy Hunt
It’s going well, thank you. So today I take three steps to make it easier for those who wish to work longer to do so.
First, we will increase the number of people who get the best possible financial, health and career guidance ahead of retirement by enhancing the Department for Work and Pensions’ excellent mid-life MOT strategy. It will also increase by fivefold the number of 50-plus universal credit claimants who receive mid-life MOTs from 8,000 to 40,000 a year.
Secondly, with the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who has a deep personal commitment to this area, we will introduce a new kind of apprenticeship, targeted at the over 50s who want to return to work. They will be called returnerships and operate alongside skills boot camps and sector-based work academies. They will bring together our existing skills programmes to make them more appealing for older workers, focusing on flexibility and previous experience to reduce training length.
Finally, I have listened to the concerns of many senior NHS clinicians, who say unpredictable pension tax charges are making them leave the NHS just when they are needed most. The NHS is our biggest employer, and we will shortly publish the long-term workforce plan I promised in the autumn statement. But ahead of that, I do not want any doctor to retire early because of the way pension taxes work. It is an issue I have discussed not just with the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), but a former Health Secretary who kindly took a break from WhatsApping his colleagues to consider it.
As Chancellor, I have realised the issue goes wider than doctors. No one should be pushed out of the workforce for tax reasons. So today I will increase the pensions annual tax-free allowance by 50%, from £40,000 to £60,000. Some have also asked me to increase the lifetime allowance from its £1 million limit. But I have decided not to do that. Instead I will go further and abolish the lifetime allowance altogether. It is a pension tax reform that will stop over 80% of NHS doctors from receiving a tax charge, incentivise our most experienced and productive workers to stay in work for longer, and simplify our tax system, taking thousands of people out of the complexity of pension tax. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Just because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is either unpopular or popular, we still need to keep the noise down because we still have to hear what he has to say. He has more to say.
Jeremy Hunt
This is a comprehensive plan to remove the barriers to work facing those on benefits, those with health conditions and older workers. That is the E of the employment pillar of today’s growth budget.
Which brings me to the final pillar of our growth plan. After employment, enterprise and everywhere, I turn to the E of education. Over more than a decade, this Conservative Government have driven improvement in our education system. We have risen by nearly 10 places in the international league tables for English and maths since 2015.
In the autumn statement, I built on this progress with an extra £2.3 billion annual investment to our schools. We are reviewing our approach to skills with Sir Michael Barber. We have set out our plans to transform lifelong learning with a new lifelong loan entitlement and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced plans to make maths compulsory until 18. But today I want to address an issue in our education system that is bad for children and damaging for the economy. It is an issue that starts even before a child enters the gates of a school. Today I want to reform our childcare system.
We have the one of the most expensive systems in the world. Almost half of non-working mothers said they would prefer to work if they could arrange suitable childcare.
For many women, a career break becomes a career end. Our female participation rate is higher than average for OECD economies, but we trail top performers, such as Denmark and the Netherlands. If we matched Dutch levels of participation, there would be more than 1 million additional women working. And we can do that.
So today I announce a series of reforms that start that journey. I begin with the supply of childcare. We have seen a significant decline in childminders over recent years— down 9% in England in just one year. But childminders are a vital way to deliver affordable and flexible care, and we need more of them. I have listened to representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and decided to address this by piloting incentive payments of £600 for childminders who sign up to the profession, rising to £1,200 for those who join through an agency.
I have also heard many concerns about cost pressures facing the sector. We know that is making it hard to hire staff and raising prices for parents, with around two thirds of childcare providers increasing fees last year alone. So we will increase the funding paid to nurseries providing free childcare under the hours offer by £204 million from this September, rising to £288 million next year. That is an average of a 30% increase in the two-year-old rate this year, just as the sector has requested.
I will also offer providers more flexibility in how they operate in line with other parts of the UK. So alongside that additional funding, we will change minimum staff-to- child ratios from 1:4 to 1:5 for two-year-olds in England as happens in Scotland, although the new ratios will remain optional with no obligation on either childminders or parents to adopt them.
I want to help the 700,000 parents on universal credit who, until the reforms I announced today, had limited requirements to look for work. Many remain out of work because they cannot afford the upfront payment necessary to access subsidised childcare. So for any parents who are moving into work or want to increase their hours, we will pay their childcare costs upfront. And we will increase the maximum they can claim to £951 for one child and £1,630 for two children, an increase of almost 50%.
I turn now to parents of school-age children, who often face barriers to working because of the limited availability of wraparound care. One third of primary schools do not offer childcare at both ends of the school day, even though for many people a job requires it to be available before and after school. To address this, we will fund schools and local authorities to increase the supply of wraparound care so that all parents of school-age children can drop their children off between 8 am and 6 pm. Our ambition is that all schools will start to offer a full wraparound offer, either on their own or in partnership with other schools, by September 2026.
Today’s childcare reforms will increase the availability of childcare, reduce costs and increase the number of parents able to use it. Taken together with earlier Conservative reforms, they amount to the most significant improvements to childcare provision in a decade. But if we really want to remove the barriers to work, we need to go further for parents who have a child under 3. For them childcare remains just too expensive.
In 2010, there was barely any free childcare for under-fives. A Conservative-led Government changed that, with free childcare for three and four-year-olds in England. It was a landmark reform, but not a complete one. I do not want any parent with a child under five to be prevented from working if they want to, because it is damaging to our economy and unfair, mainly to women, so today I announce that in eligible households in which all adults are working at least 16 hours, we will introduce 30 hours of free childcare not just for three and four-year-olds, but for every single child over the age of nine months.
The 30 hours offer will now start from the moment maternity or paternity leave ends. It is a package worth on average £6,500 every year for a family with a two-year- old child using 35 hours of childcare every week, and it reduces their childcare costs by nearly 60%. Because it is such a large reform, we will introduce it in stages to ensure that there is enough supply in the market. Working parents of two-year-olds will be able to access 15 hours of free care from April 2024, helping about half a million parents. From September 2024, that 15 hours will be extended to all children from nine months up, meaning that a total of nearly 1 million parents will be eligible. From September 2025, every single working parent of under-fives will have access to 30 hours of free childcare per week.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Mr Perkins, stop it.
Jeremy Hunt
Today we complete a landmark Conservative reform. We help the economy, transform the lives of thousands of women and build a childcare system comparable to the best, with a major early years reform for our education system—the E of education, alongside the three other pillars of our growth plan: enterprise, employment and everywhere.
In November we delivered stability; today it is growth. We are tackling the two biggest barriers to businesses growing—investment incentives and labour supply—with the best investment incentives in Europe and the biggest ever employment package. For disabled people, more help; for older people, barriers removed; for families feeling the pinch, fuel duty frozen, beer duty cut and energy bills capped; and for parents, 30 hours of free childcare for all under-fives. Today we build for the future, with inflation down, debt falling and growth up. The declinists are wrong and the optimists are right. We stick to the plan because the plan is working. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his Budget statement. [Interruption.] I hope the House will settle down, please. Under Standing Order No. 51, the first motion, entitled—[Interruption.] The bad behaviour is now on the Government side of the House! Let us have a bit of decorum, please, while we go through the necessary procedure.
Provisional Collection of Taxes
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 51(2)),
That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions:—
(a) Stamp duty land tax (transaction funded with the assistance of a subsidy) (motion no. 39);
(b) Fuel duties (excepted machines) (motion no. 44);
(c) Rates of tobacco products duty (motion no. 46);
(d) Late payment interest (value added tax) (motion no. 57);
(e) Charities (value added tax etc) (motion no. 65).—(Jeremy Hunt.)
Question agreed to.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It is on this motion that the debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The Questions on this motion and on the remaining motions will be put at the end of the Budget debate on Tuesday 21 March. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I say that it is good to see you back in the Chair?
For all the hype, this is a Budget for growth that downgrades the growth forecast. The Chancellor’s opening boast was that things are not quite as bad now as they were in October last year after the kamikaze Budget. The more he pretends everything is fine, the more he shows just how out of touch the Government are. After 13 years of his Government, our economy needed major surgery, but this Budget leaves us, like millions across our country, stuck in the waiting room with only a sticking plaster to hand. Our country is set on a path of managed decline, falling behind our competitors—the sick man of Europe once again.
This was a day for ambition, for bringing us together with purpose and intent, for unlocking the pride that is in every community and matching their belief in the possibilities of the future, but after today we know that the Tory cupboard is as bare as the salad aisle in our supermarkets. The lettuces may be out, but the turnips are in: a hopelessly divided party, caught between a rock of decline and a hard place of its own economic recklessness, dressing up stagnation as stability as the expiry date looms ever closer.
The figures published today spell it out: a year of stagnation, with growth non-existent. According to the International Monetary Fund, we are the worst-performing country in the G7 this year—a prediction today confirmed by the Office for Budget Responsibility, with growth downgraded in the years to come. This is a failure that can be measured not just by the figures, but by the empty pockets of working people right across the country: 13 years without wage growth, 13 years no better off, 13 years stuck in a doom loop of lower growth, higher taxes and broken public services.
The OBR makes it clear today that things do not look any better in the long run. A broken labour market is holding back our prospects. There are 7 million on NHS waiting lists. Ill health and disability are on the rise, and the consequences, as we have just heard, have been deferred to the future. It is the classic short-term, sticking-plaster cycle: decisions cynically ducked today; pain for working people tomorrow.
It does not have to be like this. Britain has enormous potential. In science, innovation and technology, we should be leading, not lagging. We need an industrial strategy that removes barriers to investment, but the announcements today are nowhere near the mark. The lowest investment in the G7: that is the Government’s record. All our competitors know this. They are gearing up for an almighty race, for the opportunities of tomorrow, and we have to be on the start line, not back in the changing room tying our laces.
The Chancellor mentioned the war in Ukraine. Of course the Opposition stand with Ukraine, and we stand with the Government’s response to Putin’s brutality. We will look carefully at the details of the military spending announced, and we will support them, but what we cannot accept is the use of the war as a blanket excuse for failure.
Our economy has weak foundations. Global crises hit Britain more than other countries. Wages in this country are lower now in real terms than they were 13 years ago. The average French family are a tenth richer; the average German family a fifth richer. Those countries faced the same pandemic and those countries face the same war. The war did not ban onshore wind, the war did not scrap our home insulation scheme, the war did not run down our gas storage facilities—the Government did, with decisions that hurt working people battling the cost of living crisis right now. It has been the same story for the whole 13 years: always the sticking plaster, never the cure, and today’s Budget does nothing to change that. Again, we see a failure to grip the long-term challenges—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. People should not be speaking while the Leader of the Opposition is delivering his speech. They should be listening. We will now listen to the Leader of the Opposition.
Keir Starmer
Today’s Budget changes nothing. Again, we see a failure to grip the long-term challenges and no determination to create growth, which unlocks the potential of the many. Working people are being made to pay for Tory choices and Tory mistakes.
These are the organising principles of Conservative economics, and we should judge them by their choices: the running down of our public services, paid for by working people; the disaster of the Tory mortgage premium, paid for by working people; the opportunities still missed for a proper windfall tax, paid for by working people. That is what makes the Chancellor’s boasts about lower inflation so ridiculous—the idea that it is a tax cut. British people can see through that. They see their tax burden at its highest level for 70 years, and they know it is not the Government who are lowering inflation. It is working people, earning less and enjoying less. It is their sacrifice that is helping to bring inflation down, and they deserve better than another cheap trick from the Government of gimmicks, making them pay while trying to claim the credit.
Even with the price guarantee, the average energy bill has doubled in 18 months. Because of the Government’s recklessness, the average mortgage payment is up by £2,000 a year—a massive hit to living standards, however they cook the books. And yet there is still no real ambition on industrial strategy, no real ambition on the clean energy that will give us cheaper bills, no real ambition on house building. We are seeing the same old Tory choices, with sticking-plaster politics, no growth for the many, and working people paying.
Let us turn to “his” policies on the cost of living. I say “his” policies because there is a history to this—a pattern. Over the course of the whole cost of living crisis, time and again it is Labour who brings the Government not just to their senses, but to our position. Who first pushed for the energy price guarantee? Labour. Who first called for a proper windfall tax? Labour. Who first stood by people on prepayment meters? Labour. Who first said we should freeze the price guarantee this April? Labour. And we can go on, because it is also Labour that first committed to extending the fuel duty cut—a policy that, in January, the Chancellor dismissed, as part of a dossier that he published. So for one poor soul in their research team at least, this really is a back-to-work Budget. I have a word of advice for the Chancellor as he promotes this policy in the coming days: use your own car, and for heaven’s sake make sure you know how to use a debit card. I look forward to the Prime Minister promoting the swimming pools policy. He will not have to borrow one of those—unlike the car.
The cost of living crisis is not over, and once again the Government have left money on the table when it comes to oil and gas companies—money that could have been better spent on working people. Politics is about whose side you are on. There are loopholes that urgently need closing. Even the former CEO of Shell admitted that the companies should be paying more. The long-term plan just is not there. We are seeing the same old Tory choices and the same three principles—sticking-plaster politics, no growth for the many, working people pay—and we are seeing those principles at play in our broken labour market.
Much of what the Chancellor said today focused on that, as well it might. The figures announced in this Budget show how damaging the current situation is to growth—a long-term drag on our ability to create more wealth. Our inactivity levels are particularly shocking, up by half a million since the pandemic, and ours is the worst jobs recovery in the G7. More people are unable to work because of ill health than ever before.
We will look at what the Chancellor has announced today, because we on these Benches have long called for reform of the work capability assessment, and for a welfare system that supports people with disabilities and long-term health conditions and helps them to thrive at work. The universal credit system must help people into employment, and childcare is a huge barrier to that. We have made the case for reform.
When it comes to childcare, of course more money in the system is obviously a good thing—[Interruption.] They obviously were not listening when he told us when he was actually going to do it. We have seen the Tories expand so-called free hours before. As parents up and down the country know, it is no use having more free hours if you cannot access them, and it pushes up the costs for parents outside the offer. That is what we have seen before.
On pensions, the Chancellor made a big spending commitment that will benefit those with the broadest shoulders when many people are struggling to save into their pensions. We needed a fix for doctors, but the announcement today is a huge giveaway to some of the very wealthiest. The only permanent tax cut in the Budget is for the richest 1%. How can that possibly be a priority for this Government?
The truth is that our labour market is the cast-iron example of an economy with weak foundations. Our crisis in participation simply has not happened elsewhere—not to this extent. It is a feature of Tory Britain, and global excuses will not wash. We need a wider reform agenda. Instead of making working people pay, we need to make work pay. We need to move on from growth that is based on insecure, low-paid jobs to growth that comes from good work and strong employment rights and can deliver higher productivity: growth from the many, for the many, that makes people better off in all parts of our country.
I welcome the Chancellor’s announcements on devolution deals. The principle that we should push power out of Westminster is fully supported on this side of the House. In fact, we want him to go further: communities beyond Birmingham and Manchester deserve the right powers, and the same powers, to drive growth as well.
But the Chancellor is a former Health Secretary, and a published author on health, no less—he gave me a signed copy of his book. He knows that growth needs an NHS fit for the future, and no country can be fit for work when there are 7 million people on hospital waiting lists. So I was waiting for him to match Labour’s ambition—waiting for him to match our plan to train more doctors and nurses and to tackle the capacity crisis, a policy that he publicly praised just 15 days before becoming Chancellor. And yet it never came. If ever there was a symbol of the poverty of ambition, that is it, because the reality is that a country getting sicker is a country getting poorer, and a country getting poorer is a country getting sicker. Health and wealth must go together. Britain cannot afford to be the sick man of Europe. Britain cannot afford the Tories.
And there is another way. On these Benches, we understand that institutions must be respected, that constraints must be accepted, that fiscal rules should be sound and followed rigorously, and that every pound is precious and must not be wasted. The Tories want to shout about their record, so let them shout. Wages: lower. Taxes: higher. Borrowing: higher. Debt: higher. Their chaos has a cost.
Certainty is vital for the growth that we need, essential for businesses and investors in our country. As we have spelt out, compared with a blanket cut in corporation tax, investment allowances are the right approach, but the question that many businesses will ask today is this: how long before the wind blows again, and we all go through this again? That is what the Tories do not understand about business investment. Their endless fighting on tax is bad for growth, in and of itself. Real stability means that taxes do not go up and down like yo-yos, and the R&D tax credit regime does not get overhauled twice in six months. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Okay, that is enough. I now cannot hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman at all—and it is nothing to do with being old. Now, be quiet.
Keir Starmer
Let me give an example of that instability. It is a bit of a fraught subject at the moment, but when the Chancellor was Culture Secretary he apparently took some lessons on the rules of football. Let me provide a refresher. The number of times his Government have broken their fiscal rules: 11. That is one football team. The number of times they have changed corporation tax policy: 22. That is two teams—you have got a game. But if he wants the post-match analysis, he will have to consult the experts, who will be back on his screens and ours this weekend. I know that the whole House will want to applaud that.
But a Budget is about not just the choices made but the choices ignored. Britain needs more than certainty for growth; that is the least we should expect. We need change, stability and success. Anyone listening to this who is worried about NHS waiting lists or about crime going unpunished—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear about the waiting lists. They do not want to hear about crime going unpunished. Housebuilding rates are falling. I suppose they do not want to hear about that either. They will have heard very little that makes them feel hopeful about our future.
The Government could have used sensible taxation policies on non-doms or oil and gas companies and made the money work for working people. They could have tackled the vested interests that gum up our planning system and shown real ambition on the investment we need to turn us into a green growth superpower. That was the test today: could we move beyond the usual sticking-plaster solutions and set a new direction for growth that serves the interests of working people?
I am afraid that the verdict on this Budget is clear: they will not offer change because they cannot. And so our course is set: managed decline, Britain going backwards, the sick man of Europe once again. That is the Britain they have created and they should look it in the eye, because today’s figures on growth put their failures up in lights. After 13 years of Tory sticking-plaster politics, 13 years of no growth for the many and 13 years of being asked to pay, working people are entitled to ask, “Am I any better off than I was before?” After 13 years, with no excuses left, nobody left to blame, no ambition or answers, the resounding answer is no, and they know it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We will just let things settle down a bit. If people are leaving, please will they do so quickly and quietly, out of consideration for everybody else who is still taking part in the debate? Get a move on. I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is wonderful to have you back in the Chair.
After that torrent of socialist declinism from the Opposition, I want to start by saying how lucky we are to have a lucky Chancellor. He has been lucky this winter because the weather has been a lot warmer than it was when he stood here in November, and as a result the price of energy has come down. But he has also made some of his own luck. Thanks to the steps that he took, the financial markets have stabilised and he has had to pay less in interest than he was expecting to—about £4 billion.
It is hard to believe that this is the first official Budget we have had in this Chamber since October 2021. A lot of things have changed since then. Our world-leading NHS vaccination roll-out has ended the severe contagion of the pandemic, but Putin’s evil and illegal invasion of Ukraine has sparked the worst inflation for 40 years. The challenges that those events have placed on the public finances have been extraordinary, and the spending cannot all be borrowed and passed on to the next generation. That is why I welcome today’s news that the Chancellor is forecasting 3% lower debt in years to come.
The Treasury Committee welcomes the fact that the Budget is accompanied by forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility. We think it is important that that stands alongside a Budget. It is a key part of the independent framework for Chancellors and we will be taking evidence from the OBR next week on the underlying assumptions behind its forecasts.
What has changed most perniciously since the last Budget in October 2021 is inflation. It was only just beginning to rear its ugly head back then, and as a member of the Treasury Committee throughout this entire period, I have been like Cassandra in highlighting some of the inflationary risks that we faced. Far from being transitory, as the independent Bank of England hoped, inflation has become quite deeply embedded in the UK economy in wage inflation and in expectations. That is why I welcome the news today that the OBR is expecting inflation to go back down to 2.9% by the end of this year.
Inflation is the worst tax that we have on our economy. It is a tax paid particularly by the very poorest, who spend the highest proportion of their income on food and energy, so the Chancellor must not listen to the siren voices urging him to increase or abandon the inflation target that he gives to the independent Bank of England. The top priority for our economy this year must be to at least halve inflation.
It is to be welcomed that in his Budget today, the Chancellor has tried to focus on measures that help to achieve that inflation target. The extension of the fuel duty freeze and the cap on household energy costs will all help to keep inflation almost 1% lower than it would otherwise have been. These might not feel like giveaways but they do cost money against the do-nothing counterfactual option. It is good to see that they are being implemented because of better public finances, and that these tax cuts can be seen as consistent with the Government’s second priority of reducing debt.
In our recent Treasury Committee report, we called on the Chancellor to think again about the fiction that lies behind fuel duty forecasts. Every year, they get embedded in the fiscal outlook, and every year Chancellors realise that it is not an ideal time to raise fuel duty. I welcome the fact that the fuel duty cut has been extended for another year and that, once again, the fiction has not been followed through into reality, but we need to think long and hard about why a tax that is inflationary, that harms growth and that is heading the way of the dodo, as we all move to electric cars, is still in the forecast numbers.
The third economic policy of growing the economy in a non-inflationary way will involve all of us working more productively. The Stride review, named after my illustrious predecessor, has rightly focused on this key question. Many helpful measures have been announced in today’s Budget. With over 1 million job vacancies in our economy, we are still, as a country, working fewer hours than we were before the pandemic. Unlocking that human and economic potential is key to strong, productive, non-inflationary growth.
The steps that have been announced today on childcare and on pensions will help to ease the labour shortages that are pushing up wage demands and help to counter those inflationary pressures. The Treasury Committee looks forward to exploring all these issues in detail with our expert witnesses and with the Chancellor in our next evidence sessions, because the details really matter.
The Treasury Committee has highlighted the new benefit cliff edges that my right hon. Friend introduced last November, when he announced that, next winter, only low-paid households will receive the £900 help with their cost of living. We asked for it to be spread over six instalments to reduce the risk of cliff edges. We are sorry to hear that a somewhat clunky computer system means there will be three instalments instead. We worry that, if a person loses their job just after the qualifying date, they will miss out on a lot of help.
There are still cliff edges, taper rates and disincentives to work galore in our benefit and tax systems, whether they are around free school meals, childcare limits, child benefit tapers, tax-free childcare cliff edges and the withdrawal of the tax-free allowance. The very welcome measures announced today on all those fronts, and the pension cap abolition, will all be studied in detail by the Committee. We plan to work closely with our colleagues on the Work and Pensions Committee to find recommendations to smooth some of those cliff edges and distortions.
The Chancellor can see how these cliff edges are disincentives to working more hours, and every hour of work should pay. We have made huge progress towards that today. At any stage in life, and at any age, people should be rewarded more the more they work.
Speaking briefly as a constituency MP, I welcome the help for swimming pools, for pubs, for levelling up, for Malvern theatres and for childcare providers and nurseries. There is a lot of very good news for them today.
The Chancellor has had some luck since November and he has shared that luck with UK households today. He has a clear intention to bring down inflation, to grow the economy and to reduce debt. May good luck continue to follow him, and may the extra billions of pounds he has secured for the defence budget help our Ukrainian friends have good luck and to beat back the Russian invaders. Slava Ukraini.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I thought the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), was about to launch a ship with her peroration.
If I may, I will make a couple of small observations before I start. The Chancellor mentioned Nigel Lawson and his deregulatory Budgets and spoke about the resolution for Silicon Valley Bank. I hope the Government learned the right lessons from those episodes and indeed from the 2008-09 crash: do not weaken regulation, do not weaken tier 1 capital and do not return the banking system to risk.
I was intrigued by many of the things the Chancellor said about reducing economic inactivity. Some of the measures may well work. To add more brutal sanctions on to universal credit claimants was probably rather unconscionable, given everything else that is happening.
The Chancellor gave the impression of broad, sunlit uplands, and there was lots of cheering and waving of Order Papers at the end. What he actually described, though, was a UK economy that has gone from being the most robust in the G7 to one of the weakest; a UK economy in which Brexit slammed the brakes on UK investment; a UK whose performance deteriorated after the Brexit referendum, in both absolute and relative terms; a country that unilaterally imposed trade barriers with its nearest neighbours; and the only country in the G7 whose economy has not returned to its pre-pandemic level.
One could make a case that this was not all the Government’s fault, but many of the difficulties were, and many were caused by the disastrous fiscal loosening of the Chancellor’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). We can see the problem the economy faces through the prism of debt interest. The Chancellor is right about the comparison with last November, four months ago, but year on year, debt interest payments are £30 billion, £40 billion, £50 billion, £60 billion higher than they were a year ago. For ordinary working people, the OBR confirmed in November that real household disposable income remains below the 2019-20 level and will do so for the next four or five years, and I have seen nothing in the Red Book or the OBR forecast in the past few minutes to change my mind about November’s assessment.
We had every right to expect that today’s Budget would begin to address more of the long-term issues the economy faces and would contain action to tackle some of the cost burdens on ordinary people. Those long-term issues were addressed by both the CBI and the TUC in their Budget submissions. On growth, the CBI said:
“The UK economy continues to face global and domestic headwinds, with the prospect of several more years of low growth.”
The TUC said that
“the government is arguing once more that the state of the public finances is a reason to restrict economic growth, flying in the face of evidence to the contrary.”
On productivity, the CBI noted:
“Britain has experienced 15 years of low growth and flatlining productivity”.
The TUC called on the Budget to get
“productivity rising by rebooting our skills system.”
On exports and trade, they both said broadly the same thing. The CBI said the Government should
“work with businesses across the UK’s nations and regions to kickstart an exporting boom”.
On the supply of labour, the TUC said that
“acute labour and skills shortages are an albatross hampering UK growth.”
The TUC said
“there is a recruitment and retention crisis in public services”.
On the green economy, the CBI said:
“Going green is essential both for our international competitiveness and our energy resilience.”
The TUC demanded that the Government
“institute the Green Jobs Taskforce with a long-term remit and regulatory capacity to co-ordinate planning for decarbonising our economy.”
Some measures in the Budget are to be welcomed; there always are some. The changes on prepayment meters will help, more support for local charities will help and the replacement for the corporation tax super-deduction is absolutely essential—it could not be allowed simply to fall off the table. The problem is that even a cursory glance at the Red Book and the OBR forecast shows there is little to indicate that the Government have really understood, or are taking seriously, the issues raised.
On growth, the OBR forecast makes clear the impact of Government investment. It is negative in 2025, 2026 and 2027, and it will be a drag on growth for most of the forecast period. Productivity growth, even on the Government’s favoured productivity per hour metric, does not reach 1.5% in any year of the forecast period—it is below the 2% historical rate.
The much vaunted £20 billion of R&D spend by 2024-25 has been announced three or four times, but it was not mentioned today. I assume it is still on the table, alongside the £1 million a year permanent annual investment allowance. I welcome these things, but the problem is that, with the inflation we have had and the inflation that is forecast, the money will not buy the £1 million a year or the £20 billion of R&D spend that was originally anticipated.
On exports, trade and the balance of payments, the current account balance remains negative for the entire forecast period. Being outside the EU single market remains a drag on the ability of firms to trade easily with our nearest neighbours.
To be fair, the Chancellor spoke a lot about the supply of labour. Employment is forecast to rise, but it will barely dent the labour and skills shortages throughout the economy. My view, and my party’s view, is that only reversing Brexit and ensuring the free movement of people will do that. Even the current framework is instructive, is it not? With a 16-plus unemployment rate of 3.1%, an employment rate of 76.5% and an economic inactivity rate down to 21%, Scotland has the best employment, best unemployment and best economic inactivity rate of any UK nation. That demonstrates clearly that a competent and compassionate SNP Government can deliver on employment where the UK Tory Government are failing.
The Chancellor made great merit of going green. Some interesting things were said. The £1 billion a year or so investment in carbon capture and storage is to be welcomed, but we will look very carefully to see where it is spent. There was no mention, for example, of the Acorn project in Peterhead, which of course had £1 billion of funding pulled almost a decade ago. But the Chancellor did mention small modular reactors and nuclear power, which is at the heart of the Government’s energy policy. Given that that is now back on the agenda, it is useful to look at the economics of it. On SMR, remember: this is pipedream stuff. There is not a single small modular reactor design that has even been licensed for use.
The primary mechanism to drive investment in nuclear is either the regulated asset base model or a guaranteed price for electricity with a strike price at almost double that of real renewable energy, linked to CPI for 35 years. There are loan guarantees to transfer project risk, including that of cost overruns, to the Government and then the taxpayer. There is a waste disposal service for spent fuel and other waste. The price of those contracts is set according to the Government’s methodology, but if the prices go above a cap, they too will be passed on to the Government and the taxpayer.
Then there is the commitment by Government to manage decommissioning cost overruns, even though it is impossible to know what they will be, because they do not become apparent until the decommissioning takes place—massive costs to the consumer and a near unlimited contingent risk placed on the taxpayer. But here is the rub when the Government call it “green” or “renewable”: allowing one or two generations to buy expensive, overpriced nuclear energy, nuclear electricity, and then forcing the next 50 generations to decommission, store and guard toxic nuclear waste is not green.
You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Government introduced their new fiscal charter last year: net debt to fall as a share of GDP in the fifth year of a rolling programme and public sector net borrowing not to exceed 3% of GDP in the same year. When the OBR reported in the autumn, those targets were due to be met in 2027-28, with the figures being, if memory serves, 0.3%, 0.6%, £9.5 billion and £18.6 billion. They are forecast today still to be met but, interestingly, the net debt measure is now showing a margin of only 0.2%. That tells us, because the debt figure is different, that there is probably a little more headroom than was anticipated only four months ago.
Therefore, the expectation should have been that the Treasury did more to tackle domestic and business energy costs, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises; that it continued to act to squeeze inflation down, where it had the power to do so; and that it ensured things within its control, such as public sector pay, the minimum wage, the state pension and social security rises—it did this in November—did not leave people any worse off. If it does not do that, energy price hikes, inflation and weak pay rises will continue to erode people’s standard of living.
We know from the November OBR forecast that inflation was set to peak at a 40-year high and that wages and living standards were still set to be squeezed by about 7%, wiping out all the growth from the past eight years. What do we know today that we did not know then? We know that telecoms prices are due to rise; BT is putting its costs up by 15% at the end of this month. Grocery prices continue to rise —if you can get fresh produce at all. Grocery inflation rose in February to a record high of 17.1%. That will add the best part of £1,000 to the average family shopping basket throughout the year and we know that families are really beginning to feel the pain of increased mortgage costs.
So it is obvious that the Government had three urgent tasks today, all of which ought to have been designed to deal with the things that matter to the public. The first was to continue to support businesses that are struggling with high energy costs—not simply to freeze the “cap”, although it is not a cap at all, but to reduce it. They needed to recognise that this “cap” is an average and to pay attention to the fact that a UK average energy bill of £2,500 will mean one of £3,000 or £3,500 in Scotland. The Government should have supported the reduction to £2,000 and maintained the £400 energy bill support scheme.
Secondly, the Government ought to have continued to bear down on inflation. Forcing down energy prices would have helped with that, as it did last year—3.5% was the impact last year, and we would be talking about another 2% this year at the current rates. The Government could have gone further by mandating the regulators to stop the blatant price gouging and profiteering by energy and telecoms companies.
Thirdly, as I have said, the Government needed to ensure today, or even to signal their intention, that when it comes to the things under their control—the next round of public sector pay, benefits, the minimum wage and pensions settlements—nobody falls behind. They could have gone further to introduce real fairness and raise more cash to really support the economy and boost trade. They could have ended non-dom status, but that was not mentioned today. They could have taxed share buy-backs, but that was not mentioned today. Instead of doing costly vanity nuclear power projects, they could have been scrapping them and investing in real, green renewables. And fundamentally, they could have been rejoining the EU single market, to give our exporters and our economy a fighting chance to recover.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, let me say that it will be obvious that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon. I would prefer not to have to put a time limit on, and we will manage without one if everybody sticks to about seven minutes. You can say a lot in seven minutes. If we cannot manage to have a self-imposed rule, we will put on a time limit. I call Priti Patel.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I open my remarks by welcoming you back to the Chair and saying how wonderful it is to hear you, as well as see you, in robust form?
As a former Treasury Minister, I understand the challenges that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, his Treasury colleagues and all their officials have been confronted with, as well as the relentless lobbying from Back Benchers that they have faced in putting this important Budget together. I pay tribute to them all, and to the Chancellor in particular. The work that takes place in balancing the different, contrasting interests and representations received is difficult and challenging. Of course, no Budget will please everyone—there is no doubt about that. There will always be more demands for more resources, more simplicity and so on: I could read out a list, but I am not going to do that now.
Importantly, a key test for any Budget is whether it ensures that a robust framework is in place for sound money. Of course, that is what this Conservative party stands for in government; we believe in sound money, balancing the books, growing our economy and giving people the freedom to succeed, through many of the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has spoken about today. That test includes whether the Budget maintains a strong fiscal position and stability, and whether it delivers fiscal and supply-side reforms to enable the private sector to grow and flourish. He mentioned today a former Chancellor, Lord Lawson, who did exactly that. Those pillars are fundamental to the health, wellbeing and integrity of any sound policy, be it fiscal or monetary, for growing the economy, which then leads to supporting new jobs and creating wealth in our country in order to sustain public services. We should all dwell on that in considering what the Opposition parties are advocating, which would lead to greater instability and, I am afraid, more debt—I do not, however, want to get too party political at this early stage of my remarks.
I do believe that this Budget has combined many of those elements. We must bear in mind that we still face the challenges of the pandemic and of global inflationary pressures, which have disrupted our economy. Sometimes I feel that in this House Opposition parties fail to realise the extent of that disruption and the displacement it has led to in our Government’s fiscal position. It is very significant.
What I like to see, and have seen today, is a Government who are not fearful when it comes to pursuing an ambitious, pro-growth agenda that seeks to reduce the tax burden; I will turn to that shortly. This Budget also makes good progress towards economic growth—this being a Budget for growth—which is also about investment in people, our economy and the long-term future of our country. I will mention a few issues in that regard. First, I ask the Chancellor to keep the wider approach to corporation tax under review. I am personally grateful to him for having heard me on this matter, and I absolutely heard what he said today about the £9 billion of tax incentives that will be put in place, which I understand will be tapered depending on businesses and their level of investment.
There is an important message here that we all know but perhaps have not spoken about enough: many businesses—although not all, because it depends on their size—have been sitting on vast levels of investment that they have not had the confidence to release for investment purposes. I have no doubt that today’s measures will lead to them doing so, but as an Essex MP I have to think of the bulk of small and medium-sized businesses, to which we must put out the hand of support in particular. Thanks to previous policies under Conservative Governments, our country has seen the flowering of many thousands and millions of SMEs; I come from that background myself, as do so many others. We need those businesses to be the lifeblood of our economy, and to grow jobs and employment. Taxing businesses’ profits, the increase in corporation tax and the changes that have been brought in will seem attractive but the devil will be in the detail, and we must continue to work through that.
We do not want to do anything to frustrate business investment. We believe in growth, which is why I was delighted to hear the Chancellor go back to 2010, reminding this House and the country of the struggles and difficulties we faced back then, which led to the start of the corporation tax cuts to help businesses grow. That overall direction of travel was supported on the Government side of the House, while the Opposition obviously had quite a different legacy. I believe that there is more we can do to unleash a wave of pro-growth business reforms and transform our economy even more, particularly post Brexit. Britain post Brexit is about international partnerships and bilateral agreements, but also about showing that we are the place to come and invest. It is about leveraging our markets—our capital markets in particular—demonstrating that we have the financial capabilities to continue to grow, and getting investment back into our country.
When it comes to the wider prospectus of the minimum rate of corporation tax, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has heard me and other colleagues speak about many times, we know that the introduction of the minimum effective tax rate will be delayed in Washington and in other countries, so I would just ask him again to think carefully about the timing of this. Why now? Let us focus on the budgetary measures he has announced today and ensure we do everything possible to unleash the business potential and economic growth that we desperately and rightly want to see. I will continue to work with him on that issue.
Let me turn to everything that has been announced today regarding enterprise zones, and unlocking the potential of our country and different regions in our economy, to which levelling up in particular, but also tax deductions, will be vital. This will help with future capital investment and supply-side reforms, which will help us to build our infrastructure, invest in people and disperse jobs around the country—and crucially among generations—in a way we have never seen before, or certainly not in my lifetime in Parliament.
I am delighted with the announcements on pensions, lifetime tax allowances, and childcare in particular; I was the Treasury Minister who, back in the day, worked to bring in tax-free childcare. It is important that we focus on low-income households—those who struggle to get their foot on the ladder when it comes to childcare, and even to get sustainable employment. When I was Employment Minister, I worked with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) in the Department for Work and Pensions, where we saw so many challenges with the introduction of universal credit and wanted to make reforms to work capability assessments. Today’s announcements are vital labour market reforms that will help to get more people back into work. I endorse the work of the Chancellor and colleagues across Government in that regard.
The Chancellor will not be surprised that I welcome his announcement that he is freezing fuel duty and keeping the reduction that was introduced last year. He understands the difficulties and pressures on household budgets, which he has spoken strongly about today. We are on the side of hard-pressed motorists and hard-pressed taxpayers; we have to stand up for them, as times have been tough. November’s Office for Budget Responsibility report alone caused families concern, so the headroom that has now transpired is welcome. This is an important, welcome and great buffer for motorists and for the country.
Keeping fuel duty down will also help the Government to meet their ambitious target of reducing inflation. Everybody wants to see inflation come down for the right reasons. That is how we grow the economy. This measure will save hard-pressed families, as well as businesses, hundreds of pounds a year. I represent Witham, which is full of logistics firms. We have ports surrounding us, and we are very proud of their work. They will absolutely benefit from the freeze. We have a proud record of supporting the nation’s motorists, including hard-pressed people, for 13 years—a record of which we should always remind everyone across the country. That, of course, compares favourably with the record of previous Governments. Families and businesses in London, Essex and the surrounding areas will look at what we have done on fuel duty against what the Mayor of London is proposing with the ultra low emission zone. That is absolutely something else; it is a charge that will hit low-income families. While Conservatives are constantly tackling issues around high taxes, we should also be pushing out this challenge.
I will make a few other observations, including on infrastructure needs, which are particularly down to supply-side reforms. Essex is a county of entrepreneurs, and our road network is vital. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has heard me speak about the A120, the A12 and all the fantastic roads that, I am afraid, are gridlocked. We need wider investment, because it is the only way to keep our haulage moving and our motorists travelling, and particularly to ensure that our transport is fit for the future. That comes from Treasury investment as well.
In the interests of time, I will conclude my remarks. I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the way in which he has approached this Budget. Last year, he said to me, “We will have a Budget for growth.” He is true to his word. There are areas on which I would like to follow up with him and Ministers, but I thank him for having engaged constructively, and for having listened to commuters and motorists, as well as to the voice of Essex and others around the country.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you would think from the noises on the Government Benches that this Budget was a triumph, but let us not forget who is responsible for the state of the economy today. Wages are lower in real terms now than they were in 2010 and we are growing slower than most members of the G7. Obviously covid and the war in Ukraine have knocked the economy, but it was this Government who allowed fraud and error under covid schemes to hit the billions of pounds, much of which, as the Public Accounts Committee has repeatedly highlighted, will never be recovered—billions that could have been invested in public services and many of the measures that the Chancellor announced today.
It was this Conservative Government, a Conversative Prime Minister and Chancellor, who crashed the economy last autumn and have left havoc in many people’s lives. Every time someone goes grocery shopping, every time the mortgage bill and statement arrives, and every time a rent statement arrives, people are reminded that it is the Conservative Government who have crashed this country, and it is Labour who will deliver a better solution.
I should say, in generosity to the Chancellor, that I do welcome a couple of points. The support for leisure centres and swimming pools is much needed and the prepayment meter changes are long overdue, so they are good to see. Scrapping local enterprise partnerships and giving local authorities the opportunity to lead in their area is also long overdue. Again, the Public Accounts Committee has repeatedly highlighted concerns about how LEPs spent money locally with no accountability; I am all for involving businesses and others in an area in decisions for the future, but for those to be led without accountability was unforgivable, so it is great to see that change finally coming through after much pressure.
It is necessary to see an increase in money for defence, partly because of the challenges thrown up by the war in Ukraine, but it is vital that that money comes with real rigour on spending and project management at every step of the way. The Public Accounts Committee has repeatedly highlighted the defence equipment plan, the efficiencies that never materialise and the overruns on cost. A mere rounding error on some of these large defence projects would build a new school or maybe one of those vaunted 40 new hospitals that we have yet to see.
I represent many great pubs in Hackney South and Shoreditch, so it is great to see an 11p reduction in duty on pints, but even if we take that into account, business rates are going through the roof and pubs are often tied to energy bills that are very high and have ramped up in some cases by more than 200%—one of my pubs had a 700% rise in its energy bills. Add to that rent increases and other bills going up, and 11p a pint will not make the difference—some of my pubs say they would need to charge £15 or even £18 a pint to break even. Even in Shoreditch, that would be an extraordinary and unachievable amount for people to spend.
I can see where the Chancellor is coming from, trying to get the footfall into pubs, and I applaud the idea, but he needs to get into the real world and maybe meet some of the publicans in Hackney South and Shoreditch. I will buy him a pint if he will look them in the eye and tell them that this is a success.
The childcare changes are something I have been campaigning on for a long time. I welcome them in principle, and it is heartening to see the Chancellor taking a leaf out of Hackney Labour’s playbook, since Hackney Council led a successful programme to give grants to childminders, encouraging them to take up the work so that places could be provided for working parents. However, quality is as vital as cost. I speak here as a working mother of three, having had a baby while in the House; I knew that those child carers were fantastic, and it was the quality of the childcare that allowed me to come and do my job. They are often not recognised enough, so it is good that we are talking about them today.
However, the Chancellor is borrowing here from the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), the former Prime Minister, who proposed this “pile them high and teach them cheap” approach to childcare, and I worry about the change in ratios. I am heartened that it is only voluntary, but those voluntary changes creep in, and the money proposed will take a long time to deliver the people and places and the certainty childcare businesses and individuals need to invest.
If we do not get that right and those payments are not uprated, we will see that ratio increase creep in as the norm, and that will be a deterrent for many working parents. I would not have been able to come to work and do the job I do if I had not been confident in the quality as well as the cost of childcare. Of course, I am a privileged Member of Parliament who can afford quality childcare, but we need to make sure that is available to everybody.
The Budget does nothing to solve the fundamental problem in my constituency: housing. We have 8,500 people on the waiting list for council housing; there are many more who want it, but those are the ones who qualify under the rules, which are now quite stringent. On average, there is a nine-year wait for a three-bedroom property and a three-year wait for a one-bedroom property, but those are notional waits. Every week, I visit people on their doorsteps, go into their homes and see the overcrowding.
On Monday, someone came to see me at my surgery; he is living in the private sector, renting a one-bedroom flat. He, his two children and his wife live there. He works hard, he wants to save up to buy his own home, but he cannot do that while he is renting privately. He cannot get a council property because he cannot qualify, even with that level of overcrowding, and that is not the worst overcrowding I have seen. The week before, I visited a woman with four daughters in a two-bedroom flat, a tiny kitchen, one living space, and the tiniest bathroom—I have seen cubicles in Parliament that would be bigger than their entire bathroom.
That is a real challenge for people. Fundamentally, without a secure roof over their head, people cannot operate. That does not even cover the issues for “generation rent” in the private rented sector, but let us be clear: it is the Conservative party that ripped up the opportunity for people to have a safe and stable home. It is the party that has lived off the back of the right to buy—I will not go into that now—and has nothing to offer “generation rent” or people desperate for council housing who cannot afford to rent privately. It has done nothing on that, and I am very concerned.
On pensions, the problems with the lifetime allowance were first flagged by the Public Accounts Committee in 2012. Now, in 2023, it is being reversed. No Chancellor should ever be allowed near pensions: an announcement is made in the Budget about pensions, without an impact analysis over the decades that we need to consider, and without revisiting or uprating for many years. The change was out of kilter with other pension changes, which has caused ongoing problems.
Abolishing the lifetime allowance helps the richest 1%, but it does nothing for poorer workers. They are in auto-enrolment, which is a good first step, but it is nowhere near enough to stop the ticking timebomb of poorer pensioners, which will cost the Exchequer in benefit payments in years to come. It will also do nothing to reverse the exodus from work. It might stop some people in their tracks and make them think, but many will have already made their pension plans. Many have factored in the idea of a lower pension and—for doctors—locum work, or for others, a second job, and have decided that that is an option. That is built into people’s way of thinking after more than a decade of the lifetime allowance not being uprated.
Meanwhile, in Hackney, nearly one in two children live in poverty, and of those, 61% are in working households. There are small measures in the Budget that might help them a little, but not enough to tackle the real issue of the working poor in my constituency, and there is no hope on housing for generation rent and families who need it. Without that housing base, there is nothing they can do to improve their lot. They can work as hard as they want, but they will never be able to pay the rent. The measures are slim pickings for people who face systemic lifestyle challenges every day. The Chancellor has not delivered for them.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I take a different view from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for whom I have great respect; I feel that this is an excellent Budget and I would like to set out some reasons why, as well as some questions for the Chancellor and his team.
To start with, the cost of living is obviously the single biggest issue for all our constituents, and has been for some time. The fuel duty freeze is an excellent and essential decision, but again, like my hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee, I wonder why we continue to have that automatic fuel duty rise. It was introduced by the last Labour Government and is always costed into every OBR forecast, giving people concern; perhaps it needs to be scrapped altogether.
On energy bills, it is fantastic to be giving people that extra bit of support until the spring when it gets warmer, they are not using fuel so much, and it is widely anticipated that bills will come down anyway. Again, however, I would like to see the Chancellor giving thought to encouraging energy suppliers to offer term-fixed rates, as we have with a mortgage, so that people can have a fixed rate for their energy bills for the next one or two years.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I go back to the fuel duty issue, because I know the right hon. Lady has been concerned about climate change, at least in the past. The freeze in the fuel duty has meant that emissions have gone up by 5%, while the Treasury has lost out on billions in funding. If she really wants to help hard-pressed drivers and others, why not look at a wealth tax, for example? A wealth tax on the 1% richest people could raise up to £70 billion. She could then help not only those drivers, but public transport and the public sector people who are out on strike right now. They are out on the streets wanting more funding, so why is she not doing that?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I agree with the hon. Lady that decarbonisation is vital, but where we part company is that I think people have to live in the meantime, and some of the ideas she puts forward are utterly unworkable and impractical.
The measure on childcare costs is fantastic news and will be transformational for so many families. I know that lots of colleagues across the House have been campaigning for that for a long time. I would, however, ask the Treasury team to consider going further by considering an attendance allowance for grandparents who look after their grandchildren. That is something that so many families would like to take advantage of, but too many grandparents simply cannot afford to do so because it means giving up their income; in fact, it will cost them money.
We also need a further look at childminder regulation. One regulation is the requirement for fire doors throughout the house, which is a huge expense for a childminder who wants to start up. Of course, that is a huge obstacle for people who want to offer flexible choice for families.
On quality of life, the Budget also goes a long way towards helping people. In particular, it will help into work people with disabilities and long-term illnesses. Some constituents who come to my surgeries are desperate and feel that they are on the scrapheap because nobody will give them a job—it is so difficult—so I really applaud the measures.
It is right to help people with up-front childcare costs when they are on universal credit. I had a Ukrainian family staying with me. They had an eight-year-old daughter and a two-year-old daughter, and helping my guest to apply for universal credit, and then for the childcare element, was a huge issue. Inevitably, I could lend her the money for childcare costs, but for somebody who cannot get that, the help in the Budget is absolutely essential.
On help for the over-50s, I absolutely applaud the Government for encouraging and providing support to get people back into the workplace, but again, I highlight the fact that it is often women over 50 who find that they are applying for job after job and getting nowhere. Often, it is because they have been out of the workplace for quite some time.
The pension cap and annual allowance measures are fantastic news. That is something on which I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch: this should have been done a long time ago. There is no question that the cap has encouraged people to think, “Well, there is no point carrying on working because I can’t improve my quality of life in retirement.” Although those sums sound like a lot, they do not actually deliver a decent pension, so I think that the measures are essential. Sadly for many colleagues in this House, that might even keep me working. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Thank you! It is important that we continue to look at the issues for those who have already fixed their maximum pension cap in recent years. Some fixed it at £1.2 million or £1.4 million. What are we going to do about them? That will be an issue for some people.
The draught beer duty freeze is fantastic and will really help pubs—a great quality-of-life move—but in my South Northamptonshire constituency, which includes 92 villages, we need buses so that we can get to the pubs. There was nothing on buses, so that is another pitch.
The pothole news is fantastic, but let us see some innovative ways of fixing them. Too often, a pothole gets fixed but, a couple of weeks later, there is another pothole where it was, so we need to think about that. We also need to think about clearing litter from roads. We could do a lot more about such quality-of-life issues, which have badgered us in our constituencies for so long. On quality of life: great, but there is more to do.
The tax incentive to invest in new plant and machinery assets will be a massive boost for business. The Chancellor is absolutely right to focus on GDP per capita by improving investment and reducing lower-quality jobs. We have to move to more automation, more use of technology, and better quality, higher-paid jobs. It is absolutely right to do that.
The Chancellor is also absolutely right to focus on R&D and science. He gave very impressive statistics on the UK’s performance in a globally competitive environment. Certainly, our progress is strong. When I was Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I met amazing businesses in space technology and cutting-edge life sciences, as well as in nuclear. I visited the brilliant fusion project at Culham, and worked with the Rolls-Royce-led consortium in small modular reactors. I absolutely applaud the Chancellor’s commitment to nuclear, as well as to carbon capture, usage and storage. The big challenge of our age is keeping the lights on, keeping the cost of bills down and decarbonising. We cannot do any one of those things on their own; we have to keep that energy trilemma in balance. That is the critical challenge of our age.
I think there is much more that the Government could and should be doing to build more electricity infrastructure, to promote more renewables with much better local payback and to make homes and businesses far more energy efficient. Too little work has gone into that. I commend to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is on the Front Bench, the report of the 1922 Back-Bench committee that I chair on the future for energy. The report has a wealth of practical actions—29 of them, in fact—and I urge the Chancellor and the whole Treasury team to take a close look at it.
On finance, I was, like many, heartily relieved by the OBR’s revised forecasts today, but I wonder: does the Chancellor worry about the impact of forecasting on business and consumer confidence? I worry that some of the incredibly negative forecasting that we have seen recently can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I see the astonishment on the faces of some Opposition Members about the great achievements of the UK since 2010, from halving unemployment and reducing poverty to the huge growth in female entrepreneurship and the success of levelling-up right across the UK. There is so much to be proud of but, as many of my constituents ask me, what more can we do to get the positive messages across? The same is true of Brexit. From new trade deals to freedom on taxes and subsidies, to improved financial regulation and our influence in the world, how can the Chancellor ensure that we are getting the positive messages about Brexit across to our constituents?
Finally, I make a plea as an ex-City Minister and someone who sat on the Treasury Committee in 2010, when the last Labour Government wrecked our economy. Many good reforms have been made to strengthen the banking sector, and I urge the Chancellor to keep the ring-fencing in place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I emphasise that it is not fair on others when Members do not stick to the guidance given by the Chairman of Ways and Means, which was for seven-minute speeches. That may well have to go down. I urge colleagues to be mindful of that advice. I call Sir George Howarth.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was a pleasure to see the Chairman of Ways and Means in her place earlier.
As with most Budgets, the next few days will show the extent to which the Chancellor’s rhetoric and the measures that he has announced stand up to scrutiny. The early indications are, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, that they do not undo the damage of the last 13 years or resolve the doubts about the strategic economic direction for the future.
Two problems have already been highlighted. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts a 5.7% fall in real incomes of over the next two years. That means that the cost of living crisis that many of our constituents are facing in very real terms will continue. The second problem is that, adjusted for inflation, real wages have fallen recently by about 3.2%. The Chancellor has in the Budget signalled measures to boost productivity. Of course, that is important in principle, particularly given our need for greater economic growth, which he also referred to.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who I am pleased to see in her place, and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), and others from various parties across the House, are aware that last year I tabled a ten-minute rule Bill aimed at reforming employee share ownership schemes. As such, I welcome the reference in the Red Book to the research that the Department has commissioned into those schemes—how they are doing and how they can be improved—as well as the engagement we have had with the Financial Secretary, which is much appreciated.
I take this opportunity to give notice that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West, subject to the provisions of the Finance Bill, hopes to table an amendment that would create a new employee share ownership scheme for the benefit of low-paid workers. That proposal, in addition to helping those who are vulnerable to the still-acute cost of living problems to achieve greater financial stability, would boost productivity in the companies that take such a scheme on board. Moreover, I believe that the Financial Secretary is favourably disposed to such a scheme, at least in principle—whether or not she will accept our amendment remains to be seen—and I would be grateful if she could give some indication of her willingness to continue to work with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West, and with others from all corners of the House, to bring about the sorts of changes that we hope to achieve in employee share ownership.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I strongly welcome all the measures in the Budget to try to help more people into work. The Government are absolutely right that we want to move away from the model of always inviting in many hundreds of thousands of people from abroad to take low-paid jobs here. We need to work away at having more worthwhile and better-paid jobs here, with the right supporting investment and training.
I look forward to seeing the benefits in my constituency of Wokingham: more and cheaper childcare of a decent standard, better help for the disabled, improvements in the tax and benefits system so that it is even more worthwhile to go into work, and any supporting training packages or confidence-building activities that may be needed so that those people can get into jobs. Those benefits are very welcome, and they will make an important contribution, not just to our economy and its prospects, but to our wider society.
Where I take issue with the Chancellor and the Government is over their correctly specified need to boost investment and to get a lot more company activity in growing what we do here in Britain. I welcome the aim, and I of course appreciate that the 100% first-year allowance will be helpful. However, we need to remember that it is a replacement for an even more generous allowance, and that it is coming in at the same time that the Government propose a 31% increase in the rate of business taxation on profits.
On a couple of occasions in the past, I led industrial international companies, and as I have no more interests in those areas, I can draw some conclusions from my experiences. When we were making decisions about where to put the new product or the new investment, where to expand the workforce or where we might need a new factory, the headline rate of taxation in any country on our longlist was, of course, a relevant consideration. When we got down to a shortlist—countries with high rates did not tend to get on to that shortlist, unless we were already there—we then did detailed analyses of the project. Any first-year allowance or initial allowance would make a positive difference, but if over the 20 or 25-year life of the factory or project under consideration we would be paying 31% more profits tax, it would clearly not look nearly as good as it does this year in the United Kingdom, when we have one of the lower tax rates in the world.
The Government need to understand that at exactly the time that they are putting the rate up, our competitors are going the other way, particularly the United States of America. Although the Government say that its headline rate is slightly higher than ours, the details of the Inflation Reduction Act make it very clear that there will be all sorts of tax breaks, incentives and subsidies for a wide range of industries, including some of the industries that the Government wish to target here, such as digital and green. That will be a very important counter-magnet for the investment that we could otherwise get. The United States is, like us, an English-speaking country with common-law principles and so forth; it has many advantages, and we need to have a better offer to counter those.
Even closer to home, we have proof that lower corporation tax rates work for businesses and for the society that uses them, in the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has the lowest tax rate of the main advanced countries competing for investment. A relatively small country, it has achieved giant steps in attracting large amounts of investment—much of which would, I think, have otherwise come to the United Kingdom—by having a much better rate of corporation tax. The proof that lower rates produce more revenue and help growth is that GDP per head is much higher in Ireland than in the United Kingdom, and business tax raised per head is much higher in Ireland—four times higher, I think—than here at home in the United Kingdom. As such, I ask the Government to look again at that issue.
The final point that I can fit in is that the Government need to look at this issue on a sector-by-sector basis. The energy sector is capital intensive. It is one of the areas where we could get a lot of big investment quite quickly with a lot of very well-paid jobs. We could improve our national energy security, cut the import bill and gain an awful lot of future tax revenue, because we tax energy at a much higher rate than other things. However, because we now have this incredibly complicated system with price controls on domestic energy, windfall taxes and carbon taxes—as well as subsidies to the industry itself because we realised the difficulties that those high tax rates were creating—we are causing complications. More importantly, we are putting off many big potential investors who would otherwise get more oil and gas out of our reserves, produce more deliverable renewable power and help to expand the grid, which will need to happen if we are going to carry on with those developments.
If we take heavy industry—ceramics, steel and so forth, which are big energy users—I think we have the highest carbon taxes of any major country. We have some of the highest energy prices on top of those very high carbon taxes, which means that we are not competitive in areas such as steel and ceramics. The Government then have to provide taxpayers’ money to those businesses, giving back some of the tax revenues in the form of subsidies, but that is often too little, too late, and we end up losing capacity. As such, I say to the Government, “Stop this subsidy, windfall tax, high-tax model. It is not working for the businesses, it is not working for our country, and it is not raising additional revenue to spend on other things.”
I am conscious that colleagues wish to get in, so all my other analysis and comments will be put on my website in the usual way.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I will go straight to the right hon. Gentleman’s website as soon as his analysis is up there.
Despite all the growth and back-to-work billing from Tory Central Office, this was a Budget that was treading water and going nowhere fast. There was nothing effective on falling real wages, which are now in a slump not equalled since the Napoleonic war. In fact, the OBR says that wages are expected to fall by 5.7% over the next two years—the largest fall since records began. After 13 wasted Tory years, we have a productivity problem so entrenched that the UK is now the only G7 economy that has not yet returned to its pre-covid pandemic levels of output, and the Bank of England does not expect that milestone to be reached until 2026 at the earliest.
Before Government Members start blaming global factors for this, global factors do not explain our alarming relative decline. They do not explain why, under this Government, the UK is stuck in the economic slow lane. All economies have had to deal with the impact of the covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine, but only the UK has managed to go from being one of the most robust economies in the G7 to one of the weakest. The decade of austerity that followed the banking crisis left us unprepared for future challenges, and Brexit has had a further dismal effect on our economic prospects. Both were deliberate Tory choices.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is important to recognise that Ireland has the highest rate of debt in all the EU. The UK does not have that. Does the hon. Member not recognise that the issues raised today with regard to fuel will help vast rural constituencies such as mine and will address, in a way that has not been the case before, the mobility of people who are poor?
Dame Angela Eagle
I am coming to some individual issues later, but obviously the fuel issue is important to those in constituencies such as that of the hon. Gentleman.
The self-harm of unilaterally deciding to impose trade barriers on our closest trading partnerships was unique to the UK. It generated huge regulatory uncertainty for business, hindered the recruitment of workers and has done immeasurable and senseless damage to our economic prospects. The OBR forecast said that Brexit would cost up to 4% of GDP—twice the losses inflicted by the covid-19 pandemic—and it has. In fact, today’s OBR document shows that trade is down an alarming 15%. That is the record for which this Chancellor and the Tory party must take responsibility.
After 13 years in office, the Tories have given us: five Prime Ministers, with three in the past six months; seven Chancellors, with four of them in just three months; and the catastrophe of last September’s mini-Budget and the meltdown in the bond markets that it caused, unremarked upon by Government Members in today’s proceedings. They have shredded the UK’s reputation abroad and were the opposite of fiscally responsible.
It is little wonder then that during this incoherent chaos the Government have delivered us the worst of all possible worlds. We have the highest tax burden for 70 years—up again as a percentage of GDP in the OBR documents today to 37.7%—alongside crumbling infrastructure and overstretched public services. Do not forget that this Chancellor has pencilled in £55 billion more of austerity cuts in public expenditure, to begin conveniently after the next general election. Today, he announced a mere 1% increase in departmental spending in the future, which is ongoing and damaging austerity. We see our NHS teetering on the brink, with 7.2 million people on waiting lists and record job vacancies; our transport system is not fit for purpose; and the privatised water industry pollutes our waterways with sewage, while shareholders and executives pocket massive profits and put consumer prices up. We see a brutal cost of living crisis juxtaposed with soaring levels of private wealth for the few, and the pension tax cut for the top 1% will make that worse.
The last proper Budget was delivered in this House in October 2021, not by the Chancellor’s predecessor, or even his predecessor’s predecessor, but by the current Prime Minister, who was the Chancellor’s predecessor’s predecessor’s predecessor. This farcical string of irresponsible Tory Administrations has delivered only uncertainty, turmoil and chaos. What they have not delivered is the business certainty or political stability upon which economic prosperity can and must be built, and we have all paid the price.
There is only one answer to dysfunction and incompetence on this scale: a wholesale change of the entire management, and I do not mean the pretend change that this Chancellor and the unelected Prime Minister represent. All of them are culpable for the bleak economic performance. Those who caused the problems are incapable of fixing them. The Bank of England forecasts that growth will be virtually non-existent this year and anaemic next year.
The OBR reveals that the economy will shrink by 0.2% this year, and it has downgraded the UK’s long-term forecast in all years afterwards. We did not discern that from what the Chancellor had to say in his Budget today. This contrasts with an average annual growth rate of 2.7% achieved between 1998 and 2007 by the last Labour Government. If that had been replicated since 2010, GDP would now be £800 billion higher. Had that happened, we would have been able to collect £300 billion in tax revenues to prepare our economy properly to face the future.
In this Budget, there is little sign of the strategic planning needed to improve productivity performance, and therefore growth. That is perhaps not surprising from a Government who for 13 wasted years have completely failed to develop an industrial strategy worth the name, as they do not really believe that Governments have any legitimate role in guiding markets.
We are in the middle of a brutal cost of living crisis, with sharp falls in household living standards, for which Government policies are not adequately compensating, despite the Chancellor’s welcome extension of the current energy cap until summer. Even with extended public support, energy prices are due to be 20% higher than last year. Soaring inflation has hit the poorest hardest, because energy and food costs take up a larger share of the income of the poorest. Mortgage costs are also rising, with interest rates costing those who have to refix their mortgages up to 10% more. Many are paying the mini-Budget premium as the costs of the Tory chaos last year. Rents are rising steeply, while real wages are falling for all. For those in the public sector, they are falling for the 12th successive year. Today’s Budget had nothing to say about that.
Real wages are below where they were 18 years ago, and this decline is forecast to continue for at least this year and next. The Chancellor’s decision to instigate a stealth tax by freezing income tax thresholds will reduce take-home pay substantially and make the cost of living crisis worse for many already teetering on the brink. The OBR shows that these stealth taxes will raise £29.3 billion because of fiscal drag, equivalent to a 4p increase in the basic rate of tax, dragging nearly 6 million people into higher tax rate bands for the next few years, and we did not hear the Chancellor refer to that in his Budget either.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The Chancellor always has people asking for more than he could possibly grant, but what I know is that everything that we on the Government Benches ask for is designed to help back British businesses and to go for growth, so that we can create more jobs and boost people’s wages. We do that because all of us know that it is not just about those policies, particular taxes or lines of expenditure, but people and their families out there. This Budget makes positive steps to support families and to ensure that we are supporting the future of our country by helping with childcare, providing the footings for a great education, helping people to get a GP appointment and clearing the NHS backlog.
On that last point, to which I would like to turn first, the abolition of doctors’ taxes in this Budget shows that tax reform does not necessarily mean putting money in people’s pockets, good though that is. Tax reform can be for a simpler tax system that creates positive outcomes for our country and backs our public services. By abolishing the lifetime allowance, and by increasing the annual allowance and the money purchase annual allowance, we are helping people to provide for their own futures and supporting our NHS.
I ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and the Chancellor to bear in mind that there is always more to do. There are still tax traps for some of our doctors. For example, there is the 62.5% tax trap between £100,000 and £125,000, which affects some of our most qualified medics, whom we want to retain in our NHS to help provide the care we need. The rate goes down to 45p after £125,000, which shows that it is a trap, and I hope that the Government will look at that in the weeks, months and years ahead. There is also a 71% tax trap for families between £50,000 and £60,000, which affects some of our younger doctors, and we should be finding ways to deal with that.
I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to helping families with the cost of childcare specifically. It is a great starter for 10. Finding ways to keep down the cost of childcare for parents is important, but we must not lose sight of keeping down the cost of childcare for the taxpayer too. It is extraordinary to see some on the Opposition Benches and elsewhere attack the alignment of the system in England with the system in Scotland, increasing the ratio from 1:4 to 1:5, but what is missing is choice. For 25 years, the consensus has been that everyone should go to work, and the state will provide ever more free childcare, except that it is not free—taxes are at a 70-year high—and I contend that choice is missing from the equation.
Instead of a one-size-fits-all system from Whitehall, families should be able to decide what works for them. Instead of the Government dictating how many hours of free childcare and from who in the years ahead, how about moving to a system of tax reliefs, so that parents can pay for the childcare they want, and from whom they want? Indeed—a radical thought—one parent could even choose to stay at home, allowing the other to work extra hours, if that is what they want to do.
I therefore urge the Treasury to consider reigniting the review into family taxation. Things may have changed since 2019, but I recall that in 2019 single people without a family paid 8% less tax than the OECD average, but a single-earner couple, with two children, paid 26% more. There is an injustice in this that I hope the Government will address in the not-too-distant future by commissioning a family tax review.
That tax review should reflect the fact that familial support not only for childcare but for elderly relatives provides about £1 trillion of unpaid care in this country, which people could decide to pass to the state. I do not believe that is desirable, and I believe that the state should in turn provide the environment that allows people to take responsibility for themselves.
On wraparound childcare, this is an excellent step to help working parents and for them not to have to worry about what happens after school time, but I urge the Government to ensure that we give that money directly to schools and academies to do what is right, providing a co-curricular offer that is suitable for their particular community and their children, who they know best, rather than any Government Department, or indeed any local authority.
We cannot pay for any of this without strong British businesses, and I welcome the full expensing of the business investment. This is a good step to ensure that businesses can take decisions today, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) mentioned a moment ago, we should still seek to revisit corporation tax in the months and years ahead, because any increase in corporation tax will make us less competitive, reduce investment in the long run and stifle job creation, all of which are required for growth. We have seen that with AstraZeneca deciding to move what would have been a £300-million investment in north-west England to Ireland, which means not only a lack of business taxes being paid in this country, but also the personal taxes that would have been paid by the hard-working people who would have worked at that plant. It is not necessary to believe me: even the Institute for Fiscal Studies says the increase in corporation tax will not raise the expected revenue currently suggested by some, and Europe Economics says it will muffle our growth potential, with £30 billion less over 10 years.
I offer one final idea: I urge the Chancellor to look at the VAT threshold for small businesses into the future. Today it stands at £85,000: it has been there since 2017 and is planned to remain there until at least 2026. The fiscal drag means that 60,000 extra businesses are being dragged into this threshold, which halts their growth and pushes them into the grey market. A £250,000 profit is the threshold in the new planned corporation tax and perhaps it provides a round figure for a £250,000 turnover threshold for VAT registration in the future. By not increasing corporation tax or reversing it in the future, by raising the VAT registration threshold and by reversing IR35—which other Members may mention, but I will not—we would be delivering a £67 billion boost after 10 years on top of other growth in the British economy. Investment would be up, jobs would be created, and it would pay for itself.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Families were looking to this Budget for support, but the Chancellor, instead of throwing them a lifeline, has thrown them under the bus. Mortgage bills are up, the cost of the weekly shop is up and energy prices are up, all because of Conservative chaos, yet this Government have offered no immediate help with the cost of living. They are so out of touch they might as well be on a different planet.
The Chancellor could have done so much more if only he cared enough. He had enough money in the Treasury to cut people’s energy bills by £500 and take them down to last April’s levels, yet he simply chose not to. And while he may claim he is extending support, that is simply not true: people will pay more for their energy this year than they did last year, not less—even though gas prices are falling. In three months’ time there will be no extra help in place whatsoever. The £400 payment is also gone. Fuel poverty will get worse, not better. The Government will now cut energy support for businesses by 85%. Those shops and restaurants that will not be forced to close will have little choice but to raise their prices. The price of food, clothes and the pint in the local pub will all go up, and all because the Government are cutting support to businesses.
We heard the Chancellor say that this Government will grow the economy by getting people back to work, but his plan is merely tinkering around the edges of a system broken by his very own Government: changing pension rules that will not benefit the majority of people; piecemeal changes to a childcare system that needs wholesale reform; and forcing people with ill health to work by threatening to take away their benefits. Are we really meant to believe that that is the recipe for economic growth?
On this Government’s watch, more than 7 million people are waiting for treatment in the NHS and thousands cannot get discharged from hospital when they are ready because there is no one to look after them. I have some news for the Chancellor: people are not off work because they are on the golf course; they are off work because they are stuck on a hospital waiting list. We cannot fix the economy if we do not fix the workforce, and we cannot fix the workforce if we do not fix the NHS and social care. Giving care workers a pay boost of £2 an hour would be a good way to start. Finally, we should be fixing our crumbling hospitals, which are crying out for some proper investment, but the Government simply do not get that.
Liberal Democrats have been championing the need for properly funded, genuinely free childcare for years, but unless the Government fund free hours at the actual cost of providing them, they will make the problem even worse: a lack of providers and eye-watering fees for full-time childcare. It takes real nerve for the Chancellor to say he wants to get more people into work when he is the one who froze the personal allowance, an unfair stealth tax penalising people for every extra pound they earn.
Do not take it from me that this Government have no idea how to grow our economy: just look at the figures. Under this Conservative Government, the UK is the only major economy that is still smaller than before the pandemic. The International Monetary Fund expects Britain to see the lowest growth of any other G7 country. While, thankfully, it looks like a recession could be avoided, this Government seem content with growth moving at a snail’s pace. If the Bank of England is right, the Government’s economic policy could keep long-term growth stuck at 1%. What does the OBR make of the announcements we have just heard? By 2028, they will add no more than 0.2% to our GDP. What a waste that would be of all the talent and ambition I see across every part of the UK.
However, there is no greater indictment of this Government’s economic policy than their track record on living standards. The OBR today warned of the largest two-year fall in living standards in almost 70 years. According to the Resolution Foundation, the typical household income saw a hit of £700 this year and it is about to fall by another £1,100 over the next year. What is more, over half of that—£650—is due to Conservative tax rises. That is an eye-watering £1,800 over two years taken away by Conservative chaos and tax rises.
Sarah Olney
No, you’ve spoken.
This Government are letting people down all across the UK. In very tough times, the British people have shown remarkable decency and strength, but they are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. Nearly 3 million people are expected to fall into poverty over the next two years, and in four years’ time over a third of children could be growing up in poverty—the highest point this century. That is the true cost of the cost of living crisis under the Conservatives.
That is why Liberal Democrats are calling for more help with energy bills and mortgages and investment in our public services. Many of these people will either be carers or be receiving care from a loved one, so one thing the Government could do to help right now is finally to raise the carer’s allowance. That would go a huge way towards helping some of the most vulnerable among us. All it takes is a Government who really care, rather than a Government who make people pay for their own mistakes.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is interesting to follow what we have just heard and reflect on where our energy supply would be if we had new nuclear reactors coming on line last year. The then Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, claimed about 10 years ago that it was not worth doing them. It is also interesting to reflect where motorists and household bills would be if we had listened to the resolution at a Liberal Democrats conference to reintroduce indexation of fuel duty. So I did find some of the comments we have just heard rather interesting.
Today’s Budget comes at a challenging time globally, including in the rest of Europe, so much of the package that has been announced is welcome. The Chancellor rightly focused on the fact that one of the best tax cuts he could deliver is cutting inflation, particularly as that helps to ease the pressure on family budgets, and there is a lot to like in that regard.
On the energy price guarantee extension to July, wholesale energy market prices are now starting to come down, which is encouraging, as is the additional three months of support that will now be provided. I particularly welcome the change on prepayment meters because it always struck me as rather odd that those already struggling to pay their bills, who are put on to a prepayment meter because of the danger of non-payment, have to pay the highest rates of the lot. The era when someone had to go round and collect money from a meter is long gone. The systems that manage it are digital and automatic, so there is no reason to have that differential and for some of the poorest in Torbay and across the country to face that premium charge. It is welcome to hear about the move to abolish that.
The freeze on fuel duty for the 12th year, and keeping the 5p reduction, will be welcomed not just by motorists who have to fill up their tank. We must remember that it affects the cost of virtually everything in the shops, because the vast majority of products are delivered by road. It is welcome to see that change.
I certainly welcome the extension of free childcare to one and two-year-olds, which will get more people into work. I also welcome the fact that the Chancellor recognised that it is about not just increasing the hours for parents, but making sure that there is an appropriate funding package for providers. That cannot be done easily, but I welcome the fact that he clearly listened to the representations made by the sector.
On what many people called the doctors’ tax, the changes to the pension allowances and the abolition of the lifetime allowance, it is absolutely clear that there are doctors and skilled professionals who would be working in our NHS today but for the fact that they have hit the lifetime allowance and were penalised through their taxes for carrying on working. It is extremely welcome to see that change being made. Obviously, an annual allowance prevents it from being a way to commit larger-scale tax avoidance, and it means that those who want to carry on working are not penalised for doing so.
There are areas where I would have liked the Chancellor to go further—I think virtually all hon. Members would say that. For example, it is disappointing that one of the 12 investment zones is not in the south-west. I would also have liked us to build on planning reform in areas where local authorities are signed up to doing so. Our town centres, because of the advent of online shopping, probably need the type of regeneration and alteration to their purpose and structure that we saw with the introduction of the motorcar some 50 or 60 years ago as the main method of people travelling into them. We cannot go on as we are. For me, it made eminent sense to allow some flexibility in places such as Torquay and Paignton town centres where the local authority supported that move—perhaps we will see more development on that in future.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who is not in his place, I am sceptical about how much income will be produced for the Government by raising the corporation tax rate. I note some of the changes that have been made, however, and it will be interesting to see their impact on investment.
There was a time when Torbay rarely featured in lists of Government funding announcements, but we have seen a welcome change in the last eight years with the town deal, the future high streets fund, the new stations fund and the building a brighter future project for Torbay Hospital, which could be the largest single investment in Torbay’s health services since the creation of the NHS in 1948. I could cover at length the lack of delivery of some of those funded schemes by the Lib Dem-independent coalition on Torbay Council.
I hope that today is the start of getting on with the job of delivering in our bay, particularly given the news in the main Budget document that it will be a levelling-up partnership area. In areas such as Blackpool, I have seen how, when the Government focus and work together, they can start to drive projects forward; I hope that we can look forward to that in our bay. I also welcome the fact that there will be a third round of the levelling-up fund. It is vital that this time, Torbay has a strong bid that can get the funding needed to level up our community.
I accept that delivering a Budget is a difficult job, because there will always be more demands than resources to meet them. There are more general aspects to welcome, such as the increase in defence spending, particularly given the defence interest in south Devon and across the south-west. Overall, this is a good package that will deliver for people and shows that the Chancellor has taken on a difficult job and is doing it well. I will continue to speak up about some of the areas where I believe we could do more and where I hope we can go further, particularly in relation to Torbay, but overall, this package will be broadly welcomed. As we have seen so far in this debate, no serious alternative is being presented by Opposition Members.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The first test for the Budget was whether people would be better or worse off as a result. The Chancellor has failed that first test, because the OBR’s forecast and analysis delivers a damning verdict. In its executive summary, it says that real household income is due to fall by 5.7% in the next two years, which is
“the largest two-year fall since records began in 1956-57”,
with living standards lower than pre-pandemic levels even up to 2027-28.
There was no mention of support for mortgage prisoners and the Chancellor missed the chance to end non-dom tax status, which could have helped to fund an expansion of the NHS workforce. His pledge for potholes is all very well, except that the highways maintenance budget was cut in 2021 by £400 million, which would have been enough to fill 8 million potholes. There is good progress on childcare, prepayment meters and supporting the over-50s back to work, but all that is playing catch-up with where Labour has been.
My starting point is optimism and ambition for what Britain can become, and how we can rebuild our economy and restore our reputation for trust around the world after the devastating damage particularly done by September’s mini-Budget. That needs a serious plan for stability and growth, however, that commands confidence and makes Britain the best place to invest and to start or grow a business.
We know that it is the Government working in partnership with industry that will help British businesses to thrive, grow and invest if we are ever to achieve any of our goals, whether they are making all parts of the country better off or getting on track for net zero. The investment that businesses undertake to develop products and services, increase productivity, and create jobs is the most crucial ingredient.
The challenge that we have in the UK is that business investment has been lagging for years because of 13 years of Tory failure. That was a problem before the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, and makes it much harder for us to recover from those shocks. It is a consequence of the low-growth, low-productivity and high-tax economy that the Government have created. The continual chopping and changing of Government policies and priorities has made our economy less stable and has contributed to falling living standards, falling business confidence and falling consumer confidence.
In that context, let me speak to today’s Budget—what a missed opportunity. We needed to see a strong, serious industrial policy framework for the long term that businesses could trust and that could bring clarity, consistency, stability and certainty, which are even more necessary in the uncertain world that we face. Today’s Budget did not even come close, however, which is not surprising as the Government have spent the last few years watering down their industrial strategy and hoping that nobody will notice. The only E here was for everything but a serious plan. What a contrast that is with Labour’s clear strategic missions and priorities for the British economy and our goal of securing the highest sustained growth in the G7.
What we have seen today is little more than tinkering around the edges, more sticking-plaster politics and more attempts at short-term fixes, with a handout for the richest 1% slipped in. This Budget falls way short of the wider plan for green growth that our businesses and communities have also been calling for. The Chancellor announced a £20 billion investment over two decades to create carbon capture technologies, but, as ever, this is yet another poor imitation of Labour policy.
There has not been nearly enough of such policies. Last September, over 200 leading businesses and financial institutions wrote to the then Prime Minister, saying that they were committed to protecting and restoring nature and delivering a net zero economy in support of the UK’s targets, with delivery mechanisms strengthened across the whole of Government. However, the steps announced today are yet again a poor imitation of where Labour has been, and it has taken the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to say:
“There is little…that enables the UK to compete with the massive packages of support to power a green transition that are available elsewhere.”
Small businesses should also be part of the transition to a green economy. Roundtables I am doing with small businesses across the country have shown how much they need to be central to our plans for growth. However, all we seem to see from the Government is a record of failure and a lack of ambition. The Federation of Small Businesses has said today:
“The distinct lack of new support in core areas proves that small firms are overlooked and undervalued.”
The latest ONS data available show that business deaths have outweighed business births for seven consecutive quarters.
Even schemes set up by the Government to help small businesses grow are falling short. The Government’s Help to Grow: Digital programme was billed as their flagship small business productivity policy, but after a year of its running, the Government pulled the plug in February because of low take-up.
When I recently asked the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, what programmes were available for SMEs looking to transition to net zero, he cited the boiler upgrade programme. However, the scheme’s own impact assessment says that the impact of the scheme for small businesses is “negligible”. The latest data released from the scheme shows that 0.4% of all installations in the scheme have been for SMEs. So the evidence is clear: the Government are simply not serious about helping SMEs transition to net zero or about supporting them at all.
If the Government were serious about supporting small businesses, they would back Labour’s plan to help Britain become a clean energy superpower by 2030 and provide £0.7 billion in “help to green” grants for SMEs. The lack of a long-term shift in the Chancellor’s statement has left us with the usual sticking-plaster politics. This is the natural end result of what happens when a Government spend 13 years hollowing out public services and not investing in workers and businesses, and of having a tired Government who have run out of ideas.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
There is so much to digest from this Red Book in such a short space of time, but let me begin by welcoming the Budget statement, which reflects not only a return to economic stability, but a viable plan to energise UK growth.
It has been a busy year since the last spring fiscal event. The Russian invasion continues afoot in Ukraine, causing geopolitical and economic ramifications and impacting on energy and fuel prices. There is the aftermath of covid, which cost the Government an intervention of £400 billion from the Treasury’s coffers. Let us also put up our hand about the fact that the political turmoil of moving through three Prime Ministers was testing for the markets and was not our finest hour. Certainly, stagnation summarises 2022, with slow economic growth inhibiting economic development or expansion, and inflation bringing rising prices, but falling GDP.
So it is good to see a return to fiscal responsibility, as efforts are made to bring inflation under control and restore confidence in the markets, and to secure new, reliable sources of energy imports and become more energy self-sufficient. That includes, I am pleased to say, investment in modular nuclear reactors. As the Chancellor stated, the forecast looks more optimistic, and as our economy begins to strengthen, growth is forecast to return. The Government’s key objectives of halving inflation, growing the economy and reducing debt are all on track.
However, significant challenges remain, as we have heard today. Many are still impacted by the cost of living crisis, there is still not enough investment in business to make our economy grow faster, and our labour market needs invigorating to entice many of the economically inactive back into work. The actions announced today address these very issues, and they will be welcome in Bournemouth East and, indeed, across the country. For example, there are those extending the energy price guarantee to help keep fuel bills low and freezing fuel duty, as well as extending childcare to include one and two-year-olds and providing additional funding to support nurses, so that more parents can return to work after building a family. I hope that increasing the annual pension allowance to £60,000 will encourage doctors in Bournemouth and across the country to delay thoughts of retirement.
What I did not see in the Red Book—I look to the Front Bench—were any plans to reduce VAT for the hospitality industry from 20% to 10%. Tourism destinations such as Bournemouth were affected by the pandemic. I am, of course, grateful for the Government’s intervention then, but as hospitality recovers today it is hit by the perfect storm of inflation driving up wages, higher food prices and increased utility costs. There is a petition on the parliamentary website about this, which has now reached over 11,000 signatures. I hope the Treasury will do the maths, lower VAT and allow hospitality operations to survive, build and grow, thus increasing productivity, which will help to advance our GDP. Please, Chancellor, I invite you to do the maths.
On defence, even today the Chancellor connected the state of our economy with events in eastern Europe. With around half our GDP subject to international headwinds, our connectivity, our access to international markets, and our ability to source global goods and services are all impacting on our economy. That has been powerfully illustrated by the conflict in Ukraine. Had the invasion not taken place, UK inflation would be at 4% today, not 10%. Imagine what would happen if the threat picture were to deteriorate. Yet that is exactly what the Government predict will happen, as written in the new integrated review:
“There is a growing prospect that the international security environment will further deteriorate in the coming years, with state threats increasing and diversifying in Europe and beyond. The risk of escalation is greater than at any time in decades”.
If ever there was a call to move away from peacetime defence spend, that was it.
I have crunched the numbers in the Red Book. Simply put, away from Ukraine support and ammunition replenishment, £5 billion has been allocated for the next two years, of which £3 billion goes to the new nuclear enterprise, leaving just £1 billion a year to improve our conventional forces. That will not allow our hollowed-out Army to be regenerated. It will not allow all the swathing cuts we saw in the last review to be reversed, such as tank numbers, troop numbers, armoured fighting vehicle numbers, and even Typhoon and Hercules aircraft numbers.
We should recognise—I say this loud and clear—that we are sliding towards a new cold war, as Russia and China further align themselves to challenge and exploit the frailty of our global order. As global security further deteriorates, a failure to invest in upgrading our peacetime defence posture now will not only harm our economy, as our markets are slowly closed off, but diminish our voice on the international stage. This is not the time to blink. We must have political courage, backed by hard power. That is what earned us a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. I urge the Treasury to reconsider its investment in our UK defence posture.
After the Windsor framework, the Paris summit and the AUKUS deal, what we saw from the Chancellor today was another example of statecraft returning to No. 10. Domestically, the Budget will help tackle the cost of living crisis, strengthen our economy and boost growth. I commend the Government for their actions here today, but with storm clouds gathering I hope they understand that I will keep pushing for an increased defence budget.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Britain could be so much better. We have world-class universities, some of the best firms in the world, an amazing tech and life sciences sector, great start-ups and SMEs, a fantastic banking sector and people who are desperate to rebuild our economy after the damage done to our country by the Government. The Chancellor could have come up with a Budget that was about fixing the future, investment and growth. What we have is him trying to fix the damage done by his party in government. Last year, we saw the spectre of the International Monetary Fund pointing out that the UK had the weakest growth compared to our competitors. UK growth is flatlining, and the economy will shrink by 0.2% this year. The OBR forecasts that the next two years will see the biggest fall in household incomes since records began in the 1950s, with real incomes to fall by 5.7% in the next two years.
We also saw the spectre of people’s mortgages going up. Because of the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor crashing the economy, the average mortgage will go up by £2,000 a year. The previous Prime Minister crashed the economy in her 49 days in office, costing the country more than £1 billion for every day that she was in office, making it the most expensive work experience placement in history.
This Chancellor delivered his autumn statement and promised a shallow downturn, but he served up £55 billion of spending cuts and tax rises to patch up the Conservative chaos caused by multiple Prime Ministers and about four Chancellors—I have lost count. What he should have done today was begin with an apology to the British people for the economic misery and hardship that they have seen and experienced at the hands of the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor.
We need rapid investment and a genuine plan for growth. In the US, President Biden has introduced the Inflation Reduction Act, whereby $370 billion will be invested in business and focused on greening the economy. We need to ensure that our economy is fit for the future and that there is a genuine plan for growth. We have not seen that. Investment is down—we have the lowest business investment in the G7—and mortgages are going up. Wages are at their lowest in real terms in the last 13 years and the tax burden is among the highest since the second world war. The Chancellor has done nothing to improve the plight of the British people; he has tried to pretend that this mess was not made by his party in government.
Labour will deliver green growth and support 400,000 jobs in green businesses. We will retain workers with skills in a green economy in every corner of the UK. There will be genuine levelling up. We will rebuild business with a national investment bank that will support the drive for a net zero economy. I could say much more, but I am limited in time. We have a plan for growth and for a high-skilled, high-wage economy. The Conservatives have had 13 years in government—13 years of austerity, the destruction of vital public services and the destruction of our economy. Added to that, the previous Prime Minister but one negotiated a poor Brexit deal that has led to reduced GDP. That is costing £100 billion in lost output and £40 million less in revenue to the Treasury every year.
The last Prime Minister cost £55 billion when she tanked the economy with the then Chancellor. Britain could do much better, but not until we have a change of Government. It is time for a Labour Government.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I congratulate the Treasury team on what I thought was an imaginative Budget, particularly on getting people back into work, including through the pension changes to get some key employees back to work, especially in the NHS. I had concerns about the corporation tax rise, but they have been broadly tempered by the full expensing.
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a chartered accountant and chartered tax adviser. This may come over as a little dull, but it may be instructive to the Treasury Bench. I want to take a quick gallop through corporation tax and dividend tax law over the last 50 years. Dividends were imputed with advanced corporation tax, a system introduced in 1973. It was a withholding tax at source, so the recipients of those dividends, if they were basic rate taxpayers, were deemed to have had the tax paid at source. Of course, because that tax had already been deducted, both charities and pension funds, most notably, could reclaim the tax that had been deducted.
Strangely, one of the first acts of the incoming Labour Government in 1997 was to scrap that advance corporation tax regime. For pension funds, that was a catastrophe. At one time we had world-leading and well-funded pension funds, but today the damage to them is estimated to be £250 billion and defined benefit schemes are virtually extinct. There started a long period of tax-free dividends, up to the basic rate band, for basic rate taxpayers. Because dividends are not a deduction against taxable profits, they were internally imputed to have had that rate of corporation tax attached to them, so in the hands of the basic rate taxpayer, they were free. We had a short period of a strange 10% band, but all toddled along quite nicely, up until 2016, when the 10% tax credit was abolished and replaced with a tax-free dividend allowance of £5,000. The Treasury’s assessment at the time was that owner-managed businesses were using dividends too extensively, and there was an avoidance of both ER and EE national insurance. Well, so be it. That did not last very long, because even at the £5,000 level it was deemed to have been a little overexploited. So the dividend allowance was reduced to £2,000 from April 2018, with dividends above that rate taxed at 7.5%. In the past year, we have raised that to 8.75%. Again, so be it—but we have introduced a double taxation, both as company profits and then in the hands of the recipient.
What concerns me more than anything, and the reason for my speech, is the proposal raised at the second autumn statement last year, which was confirmed today and not overturned, for the tax-free dividend amount to be reduced to £1,000 for 2023-24, and to be reduced still further to just £500 in 2024-25. My plea is for a reconsideration of that and I will give an example.
Consider a retired taxpayer, blissfully paying PAYE all their working life and in receipt of a state pension, perhaps an occupational pension as well, whose coding is working perfectly adequately. They have been in a sharesave scheme, which was the right thing to do. People have been encouraged to do that all their working lives and there are now a million people in the country in a sharesave scheme. They have been blissfully outside of doing a tax return. The system has worked easily for them.
The likelihood of ever receiving £2,000 of dividends was pretty low; possibly, the prospect of even £1,000 of dividends is fairly low. But I am afraid the likelihood of getting £500-plus of dividends through a sharesave scheme in 2024-25 is likely to be very high. Do we realistically want to catch people with fines through the door, because they have not realised what has happened and what has changed? Do we really want to drag potentially hundreds of thousands of retired taxpayers, who have never had to worry about a tax return, into the tax return system? I believe that the £500 threshold is unduly parsimonious.
Let us contrast that with two other aspects of the tax system I know where a small amount of tax-free income can be earned: the property allowance, where people can receive £1,000 of rent, perhaps by renting out a car parking space to a commuter or a holiday property for a week or two, and the trading allowance, where people can earn £1,000 that falls outside tax. So we are allowing £2,000 of tax-free income, which is available even to 60% taxpayers. That means we are potentially allowing £1,200 of tax not to be paid because that makes things administratively easy, it is not worth the hassle and the very small tax loss is worth while.
My plea to those on the Front Bench is that it may be too late to stop the £1,000 threshold coming into play for 2023-24, but it is certainly not too late to give consideration to the £500 threshold. As I say, we have allowed £2,000 of other earnings, for other things, to fall out of tax. I think the £500 limit is far too low and will drag innocent taxpayers into the tax system who perhaps have never been in it before. That is my recommendation to Ministers on the Treasury Bench.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
There is much to be welcomed in this Budget, but as we have found time and again, when we delve into the detail after listening to the rosy rhetoric from the Dispatch Box, some of the gloss comes off the picture that has been painted.
Let us look at some of the detail in this Budget. I welcome many of the measures that the Government have indicated, but although they quite rightly say that they want to give people an incentive to get back to work, we find that the personal income tax take over the next two years will be going up by nearly 20% because many people are being dragged into the tax regime—the allowances are not being changed, so they are going into a higher tax bracket. That is hardly an incentive for people to work.
We are told that the Government want to help businesses to invest, so £9 billion will be given in tax allowances to attract investment, yet according to the OBR forecast the increase in corporation tax will be twice as much. The Government want to help small businesses, and there have been announcements about various hon. Members’ high street schemes, yet the take from business rates will increase by 25% over the next two years. Overall tax receipts across the economy will go up by 10% in the next two years, but that is not due to economic growth—in fact, we expect growth to be negative in the first year and to be about 1.8% in the second.
The real tax burden on households, on businesses and on the economy is increasing. The Chancellor made much of the fact that he wants to help firms with energy costs, yet we find that the costs placed on high-energy users by the emissions trading scheme are going up from £1 billion to £6 billion. We already know the result: many businesses in energy-intensive industries are simply going overseas.
The Government cannot tax their way to growth. When we look at the rhetoric and then look at the detail, we find that rather than being a Budget for growth, this is a Budget that will impede growth. If we are to finance public services, get our debt down and finance our debt, and if we are to make people better off, we have to grow the economy, so let us look at the detail before we give a blanket welcome to this Budget.
I happen to belong to a party that believes that low taxation is the best way of growing an economy. It is right that we allow people and businesses to spend their money as they see fit and make the wise decisions that they believe will suit them, rather than the state making those decisions where that can be avoided. Of course, we have to spend money on essential services; for example, at this time of geopolitical turbulence in Ukraine and other parts of the world, I support the increase in defence spending. I think it is right that a country is prepared to defend itself and has the ability to do so.
As a supporter of FairFuelUK, I am pleased that the Chancellor has taken the wise decision to freeze fuel duty again. It is a way of reducing inflation and a way of helping small businesses and consumers who are finding that the increase in the cost of living is hurting their pockets, and, of course, it helps to reduce costs in places such as Northern Ireland which are heavily dependent on supplies being delivered by, for instance, lorries.
I agreed with what was said by the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) about the childcare proposals. They will help, and no doubt they will be welcomed by many childcare providers and users, but I know from my experience in Northern Ireland that there are many places where it is not possible to buy in childcare from the bodies that have been set up. In many cases the allowance does not cover the cost, and families find themselves still out of pocket. There is not enough flexibility when the Government finance this, because people are relying on there being a network in the local area.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The proposals are certainly welcome for England, but would it not have been more sensible to introduce a tax-free allowance increase to help families throughout the United Kingdom with children older than between three and five? Childcare does not stop at the age of five.
Sammy Wilson
As the hon. Member for North East Hampshire said, a tax-free allowance provides much more flexibility in the system, and I agree that that would have been a better way of dealing with the issue.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sammy Wilson
I will not give way again, because I have spoken for nearly seven minutes, and I want to make one or two points before I finish my speech.
There are many other measures in the Budget that I want to mention, such as the tax-free zones for industry and the changes in the system of licensing for medicines. Has the Chancellor considered whether those measures can apply to Northern Ireland? Given that, even after the Windsor framework, we are still subject to EU law and EU state aid laws in Northern Ireland, I fear that when we try to apply the measures, we will find that the EU is once again able to interfere in the affairs of the United Kingdom by preventing them from benefiting Northern Ireland as a whole.
I had further points that I wanted to make, but as many other Members want to speak, I will make just one last point. Reductions in VAT for the hospitality sector—this also applies to corporation tax—are very important in Northern Ireland, because we have a land boundary with another country where corporation tax and VAT rates are lower. Without changes in those two measures, we are placed at a competitive disadvantage.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I welcome today’s Budget, and the Government’s continued support for the areas that need it most. I listened intently to what was said by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), but I do believe that this is a Budget for growth, for the UK and further north. It sets out a commitment to ensuring opportunity and investment and improving productivity, and I am seeing that in action already with the £8.26 million for the new Cheadle railway station. As for the commitment to greener jobs, progress is being made in the building of a £4.4 million Cheadle eco business park. The Government are giving local areas and regions the tools and the infrastructure that they need in order to prosper.
I am proud that Cheadle is already home to a number of national and international firms, from the AA and On the Beach to Thales and Dow, to name but a few. The creation of the 12 new investment zones, one of which will be hosted in Greater Manchester, will attract more businesses and jobs to our region and to Cheadle. In addition, I really welcome the new innovation cluster in Greater Manchester, which will accelerate research and development and reinforce our place as a centre of innovation. We will see the benefits of this spread out into Cheadle in jobs and investment and also in reinforcing the Cheshire life sciences corridor right on the Cheadle’s border.
I join many others in welcoming the announcements on childcare. Supporting parents and families is vital for ensuring that our communities prosper. The provision of more childcare support for those on universal credit and the extension of the 30 hours free childcare provision to one and two-year-olds will give more parents the flexibility to take up employment and pursue their careers. I hear the Chancellor’s intention to revise the staff-to-child ratios to mirror those in Scotland, but could I suggest that funding should be found to ensure that safety is never compromised and that nursery staff can feel confident when working with these new ratios that they have the skills they need to do so?
I believe that getting people into well-paid, skilled employment is the best way to combat regional inequalities, and it is key to levelling up, so measures that will not only create jobs but make it easier for people to take them up are hugely important. Further to these job-creating, job-supporting moves, I welcome the announcement of investment in carbon capture, usage and storage off our coast to the north-west and north-east. This not only signals our commitment to net zero but lays the foundation for long-term high-quality jobs and investment in the north.
In order for these jobs to give the maximum boost to the northern economy, the skills and the training also need to be based locally in the north, running side by side with these new opportunities. I welcome the initiatives to improve training and skills to bring people back into the workforce. We also know that for investment across the north to boost growth and fulfil its potential, it is vital that our infrastructure matches these new opportunities, so I urge the Government to fast-track and fully deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, in order to join up these northern towns and cities and unite and link the investment opportunities.
Turning to local transport, the announcement of integrated ticketing systems is great news for people in Cheadle, but I would also call on the Mayor of Greater Manchester to hear my constituents who are calling for an extension of Metrolink so that we can fully benefit from these newly devolved powers. It is clear that Greater Manchester will play a key part in the Government’s levelling-up agenda with the roll-out of more powers to the devolved area. The trailblazer deals due to be signed off with Manchester and Birmingham show the confidence of the Government in local decision making.
However, greater powers and devolved authority must be accompanied by improved scrutiny and accountability. The suite of departmental powers that will be held by the Greater Manchester Mayor will be extensive. They already cover health and social care, transport functions and skills, to name but a few, and I see that they are to be expanded through deeper devolution to include
“a greater role in simplifying and integrating ticketing in local transport systems; devolution of the majority of 19+ adult skills funding to mayors; a long-term commitment to local authorities retaining 100% of their business rates; and, for the first time outside of London, local leaders will now be able to set the strategic direction over the Affordable Housing Programme in their areas.”
If the Mayor of Greater Manchester is to set up a “Whitehall on Oxford Street”, the scrutiny of these powers must be at least as robust as the scrutiny given to Ministers in this place. Trailblazer powers need trailblazer scrutiny, trailblazer accountability and trailblazer governance.
I welcome this Budget for growth and the measures to invest and innovate in the north. This Budget will grow the UK economy, and I will continue to make the case that only by continuing to level up the north and close the regional productivity gap will our country truly reach its full potential.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), although I have to say that I disagree with her, in that I do not think the Budget of 2023 will go down in history as the moment when the UK Government finally got to grips with 13 years of pitiful growth rates. I do not think this will go down as the year when the Government honestly confronted the dire state of our public services, which are much valued by my constituents but much neglected by this Government. And I do not think this will be the moment when the Government admitted that child poverty has reached the highest levels for a generation and recognised that we need urgent action to tackle the inequality that brings.
For me, this Budget is a tragically missed opportunity. It represents a failure of political leadership and a woeful lack of responsible stewardship over the nation’s finances and taxpayers’ money. During a cost of living crisis, we heard that the people who are probably going to benefit the most from its proposals are those who will benefit from the lifting of the lifetime allowance. I wonder whether Ministers at the end will tell us: who is going to benefit from that? It will be not only the doctors, but the bankers and the millionaires. Is it really right to prioritise them in the middle of the cost of living crisis?
My constituents are desperate to feel real hope for their future and that of their families, but what are the realities facing families in Barking and in Britain? Public sector pay has been cut by 4.3% since the financial crash, with police officers taking home 13% less in real terms than they were in 2009. The OBR says that living standards are expected to go down by 6%, and not just this year but next year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I call what the right hon. Lady is referring to a “squeezed middle class.” Does she agree that the unfairness of the Government’s refusal to uplift the child benefit cap over the past 10 years, especially given the price increases of the past year, greatly impacts on working families, those people in the middle classes to whom she refers?
Dame Margaret Hodge
The hon. Gentleman talks about the squeezed middle, and I agree that they will not benefit from the Budget either.
There are 800,000 fewer owner-occupiers today than there were in 2010, while the number of rough sleepers has grown by a staggering 169%. We heard no mention of health in the Budget speech, but hospital waiting lists are growing, access to GPs is often impossible and we are now facing the most appalling record of having the highest waiting times in accident and emergency for nearly 20 years. We have all of that and the tax burden is at its highest since world war two. I say to Ministers that that cannot offer hope to the people of Barking. One cannot offer hope by proclaiming a slogan, and I fear that much of the Budget is full of slogans.
On childcare, everybody can agree that we must support women back to the workplace, but ensuring that our children get high-quality education and care in their early years is just as important, because that is how we give our children the very best chance in life and how we tackle inequality at its roots. I am always reluctant to harp back to the past but there are lessons to be learned from what the Labour Government achieved in this area, and I was privileged to play a key role in delivering our early years services. Children were at the heart of our concerns. We knew that if we gave them the best start in life, parents would feel confident that their little ones were in good hands and that would help to develop the next generation of educated, skilled and productive workers. To see that, we need just ask Labour’s deputy leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), as her life was transformed by her experience of a Sure Start children’s centre.
Good-quality childcare costs money, and it is a scandal that we are still paying childcare workers the minimum wage, while those who teach in universities are probably in the top 10% of earners. The Government have agreed today to change the ratio of adults to children, in order to cut costs. If the early years matter the most, the state should invest properly to make sure that we get well-trained and skilled people working with little ones and that each child has the level of attention they need to develop and grow properly. I wonder how many times either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor has looked after five toddlers and babies under two for 12 hours, seven days a week.
Let us look at the funding. Generously, I assume that the £4 billion would all go to one and two-year-olds. That will allow £2,670 to be spent on each child. Labour, with our Sure Start, childcare and early years investment spent, in today’s prices, £4,100 on each and every child—one third or £1,430 more on each little one. Cheap, underfunded childcare delivered by low-paid, under-trained workers will fail the next generation of children, and it will not help mothers to feel confident about going back to work. It is a political and electoral con, not a serious policy to support children and tackle inequality, and it will be largely ineffective in encouraging women back to work.
I will now quickly focus on three other areas that received scant attention in the statement, the first of which is getting the revenue in. It is a scandal that the gap between what we collect and what we should collect is still £32 billion—getting on for half the total amount we spend on defence. It is a scandal that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has only prosecuted eight cases where there is evidence of enabling tax evasion by a string of professionals such as accountants, lawyers and bankers. At the same time, it has pursued almost 400,000 people earning less than £13,000 each for not filling in a tax return on time—remember that the personal allowance is almost £13,000. It is a scandal that HMRC investigated 30% fewer compliance cases last year, and that prosecutions fell from 700 to a mere 163. That failure cost us an estimated £9 billion, the equivalent of the total budget for the Foreign Office. We know that every £1 spent on compliance activity yields £18 in additional revenue.
It is a scandal that we spend hundreds of billions of pounds on a vast array of tax reliefs that are not viewed in the public accounts as expenditure, so we have no idea how much they cost, whether they fulfil the purpose for which they were intended and whether they provide value for money. I have seen estimates that suggest that the total cost of non-structural reliefs can come to 8% of GDP. The Chancellor’s only response to this particular scandal is to abolish the Office of Tax Simplification, which examined tax reliefs, including R&D tax reliefs. Agricultural property reliefs and business property reliefs are both used to avoid inheritance tax.
Finally, let me talk about Government waste. Some £15 billion was lost to fraud and error on covid schemes. Eight sites for nuclear power stations were approved in 2010; not one has been built, and the costs for Hinkley Point have so far increased from £18 billion to nearly £30 billion. That is not to mention the white elephant that is HS2.
Why can the Government not act to make our tax system fairer? Why can they not adopt the principle, established in the 1980s by Nigel Lawson, that income secured from wealth should be taxed at the same rate as income secured from work? Taxing capital gains at the same rate would raise £16 billion. Ensuring that landlords paid national insurance would gain another £8 billion. Insisting that pensioners, like me, who are still in full-time employment paid the full national insurance on our wages would bring in another £3.6 billion. Abolishing the out-of-date £50,000 upper earnings limit on national insurance could raise another £21 billion.
I have spoken for too long, but this is a missed opportunity. It is an ill thought through gimmick on childcare. It is more for the better-off in their pensions and nothing for ordinary families struggling to make ends meet. That is how history will judge this Budget.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), but I was disappointed with much of what she said and particularly with the tone she took. My constituents face many of the challenges that are faced in England and the rest of the UK. She talked about the Labour solutions, but those are very different for my constituents. She talked about healthcare and childcare. Those are devolved functions and the performance and opportunities in Wales are much less in spite of the Labour Party running it. So I suggest she spend a bit of time looking at the experiences my constituents face before casting aspersions and doubts on the policies and strategies outlined earlier today.
I pay tribute to the Chancellor and to the Treasury team for the stability and the confidence that they have brought to the economy. I think the fallout from the covid pandemic and the consequences of Putin’s aggression in Ukraine have had a major impact on all economies around the world, but there is no doubt that the stability, the supply-side changes and the deflationary policies that have been pursued have had a major positive impact. Building on the Bloomberg speech that the Chancellor made some weeks ago, today’s Budget starts to put some flesh on those bones.
The big news from the Budget is, without question, the OBR forecast that, in spite of the doom-mongers in the Opposition and despite the criticisms of the Government from all sides over the challenges in recent months, the UK will avoid a technical recession. We need to recognise the merit of that, and the influence of the Treasury team that played a big part in securing it.
The second headline, for me, is the prediction that inflation will fall to 2.9% by the end of the year. That is quite remarkable and again shows how the Treasury’s restraint, in resisting calls from Members on all sides, including myself, for more spending in our constituencies, is reducing the impact of inflation, which is the worst form of taxation, eroding people’s standard of living, the wages they earn and the capital they have amassed.
Similarly, Opposition Members fail to recognise that, since 2010, the UK economy has grown faster than that of France, Italy and Japan and at the same pace as that of Germany. They will persist in talking down the economy, but the way they do so has a real impact. It puts doubt in investors’ minds when they see the Opposition undermining the confidence established by those on the Front Bench.
I must highlight that the help with energy costs is very welcome and the fuel duty freeze will be a huge relief to my constituents, both those in rural areas and small businesses, white van men and women, who have to go out and about to win contracts day in, day out. They will be relieved and pleased with the fuel duty freeze.
Prepayment meter changes are long overdue; that should have been acted on by a number of Chancellors and energy Ministers in decades gone by. I welcome the changes and I am pleased that those on this Front Bench have grasped the nettle and insisted on them. They will make a real difference to the cost of living for some of the most hard-pressed families and show that this Government are on the side of hard-working people and families.
Ultimately, on the childcare changes, I hope that the two Welsh Labour Members on the Opposition Front Bench will encourage their colleagues in Cardiff Bay to follow suit. We need to remember that 50% of the Welsh population lives within 25 miles of the border with England and, unless the Welsh Government follow the Conservative Government’s lead, my constituents and their constituents will start to feel the pain of the far greater incentives offered in England.
On a broader basis, I welcome the annual investment allowance and the capital incentives laid out today. The incentives for energy security, small modular reactors, nuclear investment and carbon capture and storage also suggest that a simpler taxation system will mean that we do not need so many incentives and so many reliefs in so many areas. I recognise it is not easy to achieve that at a time of economic challenge, but that is clearly where we want to end.
The main point that I want to make in the limited time I have left is the warm welcome from the beer and pub industry for the draught duty extension from 5% relief to 9.2% relief. As many Members have said, that change will effectively mean that, in real terms, the price of a pint in a pub will be 11p less than elsewhere, which has been widely welcomed by the industry. I should declare my interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pubs.
Of course, we need to recognise that that duty is paid for by the brewers, and we need to call for the brewers to pass that benefit on to the pubs, because the pubs in our communities act as the fabric of society. They offer flexible employment opportunities and have the great capacity of bringing back into employment people who would often be left out of the workforce. Pubs and hospitality are a sector of the economy that feels the impact of a recession or any downturn first, but which gains the benefits at the end of a recession, when people are feeling far better.
There is no doubt that the Budget will make a major impact for hard-working families, getting people back into work and encouraging investment, but it will also support people with the cost of living. I am absolutely delighted that the Chancellor has listened to the calls from the industry on the draught duty relief. The industry has made further calls, and I am encouraged that the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has already contacted my office to seek a call early next week to discuss the impact of changes and how we can further maximise their benefits.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I thought that that was a rather smug performance from the Chancellor, who seems to have forgotten that he inherited his job only because of the economic chaos caused by the reckless stupidity of his predecessor and the woman who appointed him.
The Chancellor asks to be congratulated on his magnificent achievement of avoiding a recession. Well, after 13 years of the Tories destroying people’s living standards, that is some achievement. On investment, he promises us yet another competition—more of the begging-bowl culture that Andy Street, the Tory Mayor of the West Midlands, wants abolished. The people of the west midlands say, “Don’t make us beg; don’t foist any more of your rigged competitions on us. Just give us our rightful entitlement and let us get on with the job.”
The problem with the super-deduction scheme is that it rewards businesses, including those that avoid paying taxes in this country, such as Amazon, for investments that they were going to make anyway. What safeguards will there be to ensure that the Chancellor’s capital expenses scheme does not repeat the same error, with the taxpayer again footing the bill? There seems to be little support for small high street businesses—cafés, restaurants and hairdressers, which apparently do not matter to the Conservative party—and, of course, there is no action on business rates.
I think that the Chancellor could have added a fifth E —“eventually”— to his four pillars, because most of the worthwhile announcements could and should have been introduced a long time ago. The Government have been told about them by the Opposition often enough.
Universal support is a good idea, but it is not quite what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) had in mind when he introduced universal credit. How will the Chancellor pay for universal support? I hope it will not mean siphoning money from the existing Access to Work budget. Relaxing staff-child ratios for childcare will increase capacity, but will not necessarily reduce costs. I will be sure to consult with providers and parents in my constituency of Selly Oak on how easy it will be to deliver on today’s promises. I suspect that there will be quite a gap between those promises and availability on the ground.
The freezes on fuel duty and energy costs are welcome; in fact, they are the least that the Chancellor can do. Genuine measures to encourage people back to work and support those over 50 to remain in work are also welcome, but brutal and arbitrarily imposed sanctions will not work—that is just the same old Tories—and although the Chancellor’s pension plans will help with doctor retention, in reality they will benefit those with existing large pension pots, and will do nothing for those on smaller incomes. His Budget ignores the crippling loss of living standards resulting from years of Tory wage restraint. Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies casts doubt on this Government’s arguments about public sector pay. There was more scope in this Budget to promote growth and offer a fair settlement on public pay.
If, unlike his predecessor, the Chancellor worries about how to pay the bills, he could always look again at fairer taxation. Tax on ordinary families is rising relentlessly in this country, but the UK is still below the OECD average for taxation, so I am with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) on this: he could raise around £15.6 billion through equalising capital gains and income tax, £3.6 billion through abolishing non-dom status, and about £9.6 billion by extending national insurance to investment income. Why is it that, under the Tories, it is always hard-working families that have to pay, not the other people?
This was a rather smug and self-congratulatory Budget that ignores the problems created by 13 years of Tory misrule: homelessness, crime out of control, school buildings crumbling, record NHS waiting lists, and a public that no longer believe a word they say. It was the Budget of a tired Chancellor and a tired Government who have run out of ideas. Their credibility is shredded, and this was just far too little, too late.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
At the start of the year, the Prime Minister set out three big economic priorities: target inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt. In this Budget, the Chancellor has set the scene for how we make those priorities succeed. I believe this Budget has shown vision and pragmatism that will help people and businesses in the two cities.
As always, households are at the forefront of the Government’s priorities, so I am delighted to hear that the energy price guarantee is to be extended to keep the average cost of energy bills at £2,500 for a further three months. Maintaining that support will save households hundreds of pounds over the coming months, preventing millions of families from falling into fuel poverty.
In the two cities, we have many residents being supplied energy by communal heat networks. I recognise that the Energy Bill is progressing, and that it will go some way towards supporting those who rely on communal heat networks. However, I hope that financial support can be extended to those households, as they are all too often overlooked through no fault of their own. Also, although I know the hospitality sector welcomes the Brexit pub guarantee, it remains concerned about energy costs for its businesses, such as restaurants and pubs. That is such a huge sector for the west end and across my constituency.
However, this Budget does so much, and goes a long way to boost employment. Rebooting the benefits system to support people back into work is something I particularly welcome. The Budget includes the biggest reform to the welfare system in a decade, meaning that disabled and long-term sick people can now work without the worry of losing out. This is important for several reasons, but principal among them is that in the real world, people’s ability to work is not as binary as the current system implies. I have seen that at first hand in the Fair Shot café in Covent Garden, run by Bianca Tavella, who is supporting young people with learning disabilities to get back into the workplace, and it makes a huge difference to the individual and their family.
I also welcome the measures to support children in care as they get to working age, as well as to help jobseekers into decent jobs with decent wages. The Chancellor is right to remove any barriers that we can with reform that strengthens our society and our economy. Building on that point, the changes to childcare will have a real impact on people’s lives in the two cities. I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who have really driven this measure through and got it over the line.
I particularly welcome the major changes to childcare because they will give working women a real opportunity to choose what is best for them and their family—whether they stay at home with their children or want to continue with their career—not least because parents will now be afforded 30 hours of free childcare from as early as nine months until their child’s fifth birthday. The help for wraparound childcare in schools is most welcome, too. For me that is so important, because it means that parents can have the flexibility to decide what is best for them and their children.
The Chancellor has also taken a sensible and pragmatic approach to business taxation. For the two cities, that is incredibly important. As a Conservative I recognise the value of competitive tax regimes and understand the value of pro-business, pro-enterprise government, so I am glad to hear announcements on simplifying the tax system for small and medium-sized businesses.
I must take this opportunity to once again make a plea for the return of VAT-free shopping for overseas visitors. That would not only be a massive boost to London, and my constituency in particular, but would have a massive knock-on effect for jobs and businesses across the United Kingdom. I have spoken to the Chancellor about that specifically, and I know he is looking at it, but I hope we will have an announcement sooner rather than later, because the benefit it has for the whole country is so important. Having said that, I look forward to the review of taxes paid by smaller businesses and the consultation to expand the cash basis, as well as measures to simplify customs, import and export processes for small businesses. While I welcome all that, I urge the Government to keep tax simplification as an ongoing priority.
In conclusion, despite enormous global challenges, the UK economy is proving the doubters wrong. Far from entering a technical recession this year, the Government are stimulating growth, supporting hard-working families and looking forward with a powerful vision for this country.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), and I actually agree with something that she said about VAT. While I am in a positive mood, I thank the Chancellor for his announcement on prepayment meters, because I have been championing that campaign for the past seven years.
I feel like there is a lot missed in this Budget. At the moment we are facing a profit crisis, while many people are struggling. The Office for Budget Responsibility has stated that real household income is due to fall by 5.7% in the next two years, which is the largest two-year fall since records began. It will be lower than pre-pandemic levels. The Chancellor has missed a huge trick here. I know the devil will be in the detail, but the pension announcement, as far as I can make out, is for the wealthy—those who can afford to put away £60,000 a year. It also seems like the only permanent tax cut in the Budget is for those who are very wealthy. The Chancellor could have stopped all the strikes if he had only made an announcement on public sector workers’ pay today, but he chose not to do that. As we have heard from other Opposition Members, there was also nothing on capital gains tax or income tax. That is very strange.
The UK economy cannot be improved without London’s contribution. London Councils has five key priorities: housing and homelessness; health and care; supporting businesses; helping London deliver net zero; and greater devolution to local government. London’s businesses are struggling in the face of increasing labour and energy costs and sustained high inflation. Will the Chancellor commit to keeping the energy bill relief scheme under review and materially improving the discount for businesses, and will he reform the apprenticeship levy to make it easier and cheaper for employers to recruit and retain talent? As we have heard, many employers are buying equipment rather than investing in people. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, we should reintroduce the VAT retail export scheme too, to make London and other UK destinations more competitive for overseas shoppers. That would add a net gain to the public purse.
Because of the pandemic and the current cost of living crisis, local authorities will have to make savings of at least £100 million next year to balance their budgets. That is not sustainable for local authorities such as mine in Brent. We have a homelessness problem, too. Shelter recently reported that 1 in 58 Londoners are homeless. Will the Chancellor increase the local housing allowance rates, which have been frozen since 2020, to help tackle homelessness, and also increase discretionary housing payment allocations? These are all steps the Chancellor could have taken if he was really interested in investing in growth in our country, because local authorities can only do so much.
Is there money, too, to provide additional investment for the refurbishment of existing housing stock to treat damp and mould and address fire and building safety issues? Last time Labour came into government it had to put a lot of money into making social housing right. It is especially important in London to remove all restrictions on how councils can use right to buy receipts, to sustain affordable housing delivery without placing additional demands on the public purse. These are all things that could be done if we had a bit of imagination from the Government.
London’s devolution settlement is over 20 years old. The Government’s commitment to deepen devolution should apply equally to London as elsewhere, to enable London boroughs and the Mayor of London to tackle the 21st-century problems facing the capital. Will the Chancellor work closely with London Councils and with me as chair of the London parliamentary Labour party to ensure that we broaden the balance of revenue-raising powers available to councils in the longer term, to improve financial resilience and reduce reliance on any single funding stream?
Some Government Members have said today that they are sometimes confused about what we on the Opposition side of the House stand for: I want to reassure them by reaffirming that the Labour party and London Labour members stand for a moral crusade for making our country better. I do hope the Government will take some of my points on board.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), and I agree with her and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) that it would be very good to sort out the VAT issue for goods that are going to be exported.
Listening to the debate and looking at the documents, I have been struck that I have made a mistake. I used to think that a phantasmagoria was a forerunner of a moving picture—the sort of machine that I might go home and watch on a quiet Wednesday evening—but it turns out that it is, in fact, our current approach to economic policy making.
I refer right hon. and hon. Members to page 131 of the OBR’s report, which says:
“Since the OBR was established in 2010, the Government has had six different fiscal mandates.”
That means that the OBR comes up with forecasts that are wrong to meet a Government mandate that will change, so the value of the exercise on which we are basing our economic policy is not right. It does not serve the purpose of what we are trying to do, which is to achieve economic growth and to increase the standard of living of our constituents generation by generation. Instead, we are taking a theoretical approach that does not work in practice, which is why we have not been achieving growth, because we have not been willing to make the necessary decisions.
Today, we have heard some things that are welcome, but they have been picked out of a jar of sweeties. For example, we have picked out the sweetie on pension reform, which is great, as it happens—the Toblerone with a Swiss marker on it of sweeties—because it could really encourage investment. It could make people think that pension investing is a long-term opportunity, which it has not been in recent years, as long as the reform remains and we do not find that next year, a new limit is brought in or the £60,000 annual investment limit is tweaked. In recent years, we have had such confusion in pension investing that one wonders why anyone has bothered. It was brought into the sharp light of day only by the fact that people were retiring from the public sector because the pension system had become so lunatically punitive in the high marginal rates it charged. This is a welcome aspect of the Budget as long as it is stuck to.
The deregulation of childcare, again, is a good thing. I have pointed out that if somebody such as me is allowed to be left in charge of six children, which is perfectly legal, even without any Government intervention or Ofsted inquiry, it seemed surprising that people much more capable and better trained could look after only four. I am glad that the number is being increased. I am also delighted that the fuel duty is being frozen. As the Mayor of London wishes to savage the motorist and put them into penury, I am reassured that the Conservatives continue to be on the side of the motorist.
Those are some of the sweeties that we have been able to pick out, but it is not all sweeties, because a number of things that were not mentioned in the Budget will continue. For example, everybody will have a real-terms increase in their tax because of the failure to uprate thresholds. That will mean that people will come into the higher rate of tax who, particularly if they live in London, are not actually that well off.
We are therefore getting a big tax rise, which is where I return to the phantasmagoria. By failing to think through economic policy in a way that will actually work, and by thinking of it on a theoretical basis, we have seen the tax rate rise. Let us look on page 80 of the OBR report at what happened in the Thatcher era. For the record, I think the OBR is a useless body that gives bad forecasts that are consistently wrong, but some of the historical data in the document are perfectly respectable.
Importantly, the OBR says that between 1981 and 1995, which we might call the Thatcher era, the tax burden fell from 33.9% of GDP to 27.4%. Once the socialists got in, it started rising, but I would have thought that since the Conservatives got in again in 2010, it might have come down a bit. Not a bit of it—it has gone on rising, which seems to be the problem that we are facing. We have a rise in corporation tax now, but we salami-slice it with some capital allowances to pretend that it is not much of a rise, which is not a good approach to tax policy. The best approach to tax policy is low tax rates with few exclusions.
The Budget sets up a tax avoidance scheme—the other side makes powerful arguments against tax avoidance—that companies are asked to carry out because the Government think businesses might spend money in a way that the Government approve of. But who actually knows best how to spend their money—businesses or the Government? Businesses. What we want is low rates, rather than investment being distorted to go in the way that the Government currently think is fashionable.
That is why I think we should be cutting corporation tax and looking at what has happened in the Republic of Ireland. This has been mentioned before, but the figures are stark. I wonder if those on the Treasury Bench are aware that, in the Republic of Ireland, corporation tax raises more money than value added tax, and it has a very similar VAT base to the one in the UK: €22.6 billion in corporation tax and €18.6 billion in VAT. In comparison, the UK raises £82 billion in corporation tax and £162 billion in VAT.
Lower taxes raise more money. Let us for once move away from the old-fashioned—from the phantasmagoria —and update ourselves to a modern age with tax cuts and economic growth.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Of the short-term giveaways to placate Conservative Back Benchers, a potholes hotline, after £400 million of cuts to highways budgets, is apparently their favourite in this sticking-plaster Budget after 13 years of failure. The bleak OBR analysis shows living standards 6% lower in two years’ time, and still below pre-pandemic levels by 2028. What was the Chancellor’s flagship announcement during a cost of living crisis? To prioritise those who are already the wealthiest.
Other countries have recovered strongly since the pandemic, but not the UK, so how absurd that the Chancellor should crow about avoiding recession when the UK will still be the only country where GDP will not have recovered to pre-pandemic levels by the end of this year. Low growth since 2010 has seen households £8,800 per year worse off on average when compared with average growth in the OECD, and a £40 billion gap in tax revenues. The party that has presided over low growth since 2010 and that crashed the economy was never going to have the answers to the deep-seated problems it has created, and so it was with the Budget the Chancellor has announced.
Whatever today was, it was not a long-term plan for business. Investment is at a record low level. Firms such as AstraZeneca are moving overseas. Small businesses have been forced to close by high energy bills, high business rates, shortages of supplies and a lack of skilled workers. What of our international competitiveness, when the United States is attracting investment through the Inflation Reduction Act and the European Union is implementing its own equivalent plan? Let us look at what business says.
Here is what Mike Hawes of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has said today:
“There is little…that enables the UK to compete with the massive packages of support to power a green transition that are available elsewhere.”
Make UK says that
“this does little to tackle the real and immediate threat manufacturers face with rocketing energy bills.”
That point was reiterated by the British Chambers of Commerce, which has also criticised the failure to reform business rates. Martin McTague of the Federation of Small Businesses has said that
“today’s Budget will leave many feeling short-changed”,
and that
“the Government’s lack of support for small firms in critical areas is glaring.”
Businesses want long-term help with their energy costs, the abolition of business rates, reform of the apprenticeship levy so that they can all use it for what they need, and greater access to procurement for businesses of all sizes. Labour is committed to all those as part of our industrial strategy. Businesses agree with our plans for self-sufficiency and renewable electricity generation to cut bills and guarantee supply, while playing our part in meeting our climate obligations, as well as the insulation of 19 million homes. They agree with our plans for eight gigafactories and the roll-out of EV charging points, with grants and low-interest loans for consumers being absolutely critical in the transition to electric, especially when new car sales are at a 70-year low. They agree with our plans because they have been drawn up in partnership with industry.
Labour’s green prosperity plan is a response to the massive attraction of the Biden plan. Investors and businesses support us. It is the Labour party that recognises that the part of the worker has to be the party of business. That is why we will be partners of business and trade unions when we are in government. That is how modern industrialised economies thrive: partnership. No wonder John Allan, the chairman of Tesco and Barratt, says there is only one political team on the pitch: Labour.
The failure of the Government to take a strategic approach will continue to undermine our prospects and delay any recovery in living standards. That is what the OBR says. In the week of the Cheltenham Festival, I have two pieces of advice: first, come to the grand national in my constituency next month; it is, of course, the biggest horse race in the world. Secondly, after this sticking-plaster of a Budget, do not gamble at Cheltenham or Aintree—save your money for the sure bet of a general election and a Labour win.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) made her contribution to the debate by talking about inflation. I agree with some of the contributions I have heard, but just as important as the fact that we have avoided a technical recession is that inflation figures are forecast to come down very sharply. That is hugely important and it is right that the Government have helped households with the cost of living, including the £94 billion package set out in the Budget, which is not to be sniffed at. I particularly welcome the announcement on prepayment meters. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) on her campaign. It is an important issue of social justice and many of us have been raising concerns about prepayment meters over a long period of time, so I congratulate her on her success in that regard.
The main thing I want to say, as Chairman of the Education Committee, is thank you to the Chancellor for listening to the concerns raised by colleagues on both sides of the House about the affordability of childcare. I pay tribute to the Members who have raised this issue consistently: the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips); the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats; my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie); my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom); my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson); my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris); and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). All have spoken up about the need to reform childcare and the need to properly fund the so-called free—more correctly, subsidised —hours of childcare that we provide.
There are some really welcome decisions in the Budget that go further on this issue. The first is the decision to invest. I spoke recently in the estimates day debate on the Department for Education. I described investing in childcare in the early years as a win to the power of four. The decision that the Chancellor has taken to invest in childcare in the early years is, after defence, the next big spending commitment in the Budget. I welcome both key investments for the long run.
I welcome the idea of extending the 30 hours offer to one and two-year-olds. The gap that exists between the end of parental leave and the beginning of support has been pointed out by many Members on both sides of the House. That gap has been made significantly smaller by the Government’s introduction of the 30 hours for three and four-year-olds. It has been made significantly better for a small group of people by the offer for disadvantaged two-year-olds. Widening the offer to cover 30 hours for one, two, three and four-year-olds could be game changing, but only if we ensure the sector is properly funded. In that respect, I welcome the fact that, as part of today’s announcement, the Government have announced a step up in the funding for the existing allowances: £204 million next year, increasing to £288 million the year after.
However, the Select Committee has heard concerns about the very real cost pressures that the sector faces right now. Those include substantial increases in business rates—a real problem affecting the voluntary and independent sector, which is such a key part of the childcare sector. I join the calls from the Opposition and Government Benches for further consideration of business rates reform. Another concern I have about the childcare announcements is the ratios. The Select Committee has heard clearly from the sector that if the change is voluntary, not many will take it up, and they certainly do not hear from parents that they want it. However, I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to the consultation and have at least made it optional.
I listened carefully to the arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) about family taxation. There is great sympathy on the Select Committee for going further to provide genuine tax-free childcare, and I hope that we will be able to pick that up as we move forward with our inquiry. I very much welcome the emphasis on expanding the provision of childminding and the reforms to universal credit, which can make a substantial contribution in this space. Again, that is going with the grain of the sector, but we need to ensure that we have sustainable funding for both maintained and voluntary and independent nurseries.
Investing in childcare and early years is the right thing to do, but there are other pressures within the Department for Education’s remit. We heard from the IFS that, under a Conservative Government, investment in the early years has grown faster than in almost any other area of education spending, but its summary of education spending over the last decade also stated that the post-16 further education provision—what my predecessor as Select Committee chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), often describes as a “Cinderella sector”—is one of the most tightly squeezed. As we move forward from the Budget towards the autumn statement, I hope that the Treasury will look carefully at the need for more investment in that sector. Although I welcome the £2.3 billion extra for schools from the spending review, they still face a real squeeze from the combination of inflationary pressures and pay rises for teaching and non-teaching staff.
I welcome smaller Budget announcements, such as the £3 million for supported internships. Buried away in the Red Book and not in the Chancellor’s speech was £11.5 million for Ukrainians to access language programmes. That is welcome, and I know from my time at the DFE that the provision of English for speakers of other languages could be variable. Any extra money spent on supporting Ukrainian families in all our constituencies will be well-spent.
I welcome the extra support for children in care and the amazing people who support them. I hope that the Government will look carefully at extending that further, particularly when it comes to kinship carers. I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) said about attendance allowance for grandparents.
I want to pick on the action taken on pensions to help keep doctors in the NHS, which is extremely welcome and important. That will also help to improve retention of headteachers. In addition to action to keep and retain doctors, we need more places in medical schools. This morning I met the Hospitals Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), along with MPs from across Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Gloucestershire to press the case for funded places at the Three Counties Medical School in my constituency. That will make a real difference. I heard the Chancellor mention his long-term NHS workforce plan, and I am glad that it will be announced shortly. I will keep pushing for the fact that funded places at the Three Counties Medical School in Worcester need to be part of that.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who gave a characteristically fair and practical speech.
Many of the measures announced today are to be welcomed, although it is clear that people struggling with the cost of living, increased mortgages and pressures on small businesses to pay energy bills and find staff will not recognise the rosy picture presented by Government Members. It is impossible not to see that so many of the initiatives are due to commence in 2024, when it is likely that the Government Benches will not be occupied by the same people. In many cases, this is a fiscal hospital pass for my colleagues.
Of course, my focus is on Northern Ireland. The context for us is the real opportunity that we have to get on with things, through the Windsor framework, but also our disadvantage through the lack of an Executive to implement initiatives that may be better funded after today. Nowhere is that implementation gap clearer than in childcare. I commend all the Members of the House and the campaigning groups outside who fought very hard and pushed for these measures to be announced. As the lucky mum of three large childcare bills, I can confirm that the approach is overdue and vital, but it is crucial that it goes further than a press release, an announcement and a headline.
The sector needs serious reform that supports families, focuses on children’s development and tackles the educational inequality that we know is set in the first 1,000 days of a child’s life, in which childcare has such a role to play. We need to ensure that funding is there, so that this is not just about “minding” young people but gets in there and changes some of those stubborn, fixed outcomes. The changes must not leave behind the workforce of this vital sector, whose wages have never matched the skill, care and, increasingly, the qualifications that they need.
I am a true believer in devolution and its power to protect a region such as mine, but as a founding chair of the Assembly’s all-party group on childcare, I regret to say that this is one area where we have absolutely fallen behind. Northern Ireland does not even have the 30 free hours for three and four-year-olds that is in place in parts of England.
I welcome the proposed allocation of up to £40 million for Northern Ireland for further and higher education. I hope that we can begin to end the export of Northern Ireland’s finest resource: our young people. Many thousands of young people have to leave after tens of thousands of pounds have been put into their primary and post-primary education in order to get a university place, because of the artificial MaSN—maximum student number—cap, but I hope that the funding is one of the things that gets us moving.
On the skills deficit that leaves workers, young and old, unable to access the training opportunities they need to get into the labour market of today and of the future, there is a mismatch in what we are providing for skills. I am disappointed that there are not, as yet, specific proposals to address the alarming cliff edge facing many charities and third sector organisations in Northern Ireland that specialise in employability, because of the loss of the European social fund. We are reckoning on a loss of tens of millions of pounds per year in Northern Ireland.
The Chancellor spoke directly about the so-called economically inactive, so it is penny-wise and pound-foolish to allow to fail many of the schemes that are tried and tested in getting people who need a little extra support, because of additional needs or other reasons, into the labour market. There are opportunities now and we cannot let fail the organisations that support them.
Our labour market, by the way, is undoubtedly disadvantaged by the difficulty in bringing in talent from elsewhere. It is disappointing that there has not been a recognition of that and about the impact of labour shortages in key parts of the economy.
I welcome the specific allocation to the tackling paramilitarism programme, and I urge those allocating that to invest, invest and invest in community resilience and alternative leaders, and to learn the lessons of practice in paramilitary transition. Look at the good and look at what absolutely has not worked, as we try to rid our neighbourhoods and our society of the cancer of paramilitary hard men holding people back and preying on the vulnerable.
On green technology and transition, some progress is welcome but, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we are not yet really even on the pitch. I remind the Government that green jobs are not just people in hi-vis jackets working with steel and all that; jobs in caring and education are, by definition, low emission. Northern Ireland can play a real part in the multi-level transition that we need. We are very well positioned to be a leader in wind, tidal and hydrogen power, and other things, but to be really game changing we need the sort of strategy and investment we see in the US and EU.
It is a disappointing missed opportunity, with the squeeze on the most vulnerable, not to reinstate the universal credit uplift or address the two-child limit. Those are key concerns of the Northern Ireland Women’s Budget Group, which has led in this area.
All of Northern Ireland’s opportunity comes back to the Windsor framework and the chance that we now have for a new beginning, politically and economically. That includes selling our dual market access. I and my party have shouted loudly for two years, in and outside this House, about the unique proposition that we now have. We are seeing a boom in some parts of the economy, such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing and agrifoods, but that needs an Executive and it needs a very serious strategy in place to spend the Barnett consequentials and realise the potential of our region.
Over the next few weeks we will be marking and celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. We have had two and a half decades of peace processing. With the right investment and the right strategy, the next 25 can be our prosperity years.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. If Members keep to about six or seven minutes, as they appear to have been doing, we will get everybody in. I remind the House that there will be no wind-ups at the end of today’s proceedings.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), who highlighted the importance of childcare.
I congratulate the Chancellor on today’s Budget supporting families and businesses with the cost of living and growth. I would like to highlight three measures that will have a particular impact for my constituents in Dover and Deal. The first is the fuel duty freeze and the continuing energy support: many people rely on their cars to get around, and the recent fuel and energy prices have been worrying for very many people. The second is the expansion of free childcare for young children. Thirdly, I welcome the focus on older workers, skills and jobs support.
In Dover and Deal since 2020, average wages have risen, unemployment has fallen and youth unemployment has fallen. Thousands more people are employed in my constituency than when Labour left office in 2010. The measures taken by Conservative Governments have created more jobs and money in Dover and Deal. In addition, Dover’s £63 million levelling-up funding will create a new creative and digital skills campus and investment in port and road infrastructure. I want to see our whole area growing and thriving, so the further jobs and skills support set out in the Budget is welcome. The support for older workers is important because discrimination against older workers is very real—I will move a ten-minute rule motion next week to tackle that very issue. I want to work very closely with Ministers to ensure that the ambitions set out in this Budget are matched by increased employment for older workers.
There is one area on which I hoped there would be more in this Budget: housing and house building. I draw attention in that regard to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in relation to my unpaid directorship of the Housing and Finance Institute. Under the Conservatives, house building has been booming recently, with more than 200,000 homes delivered last year. In Dover and Deal, Conservative-led Dover District Council has delivered an impressive programme of building its own council homes for affordable and social renting and shared ownership.
Although locally Dover and Deal Conservatives are delivering affordable homes, broader economic conditions have led to a slowdown in house building that appears to be severe. The Home Builders Federation has said that it looks like the worst period for house building since the financial crash. The OBR forecast on the housing market has worsened since November, with house prices down 10% and property transactions down 20%. That matters for today’s Budget because house building contributes £15 billion to £17 billion for each 100,000 homes built. New homes also support approximately £8 billion in additional infrastructure investment, which means roads, schools, GP surgeries and environmental improvements.
The financial impact of a downturn in house building is significant. I had hoped, and still hope, to see more from the Chancellor about supporting that important sector, because it is not just in relation to economic activity or GDP that house building matters. Not building enough homes creates more strain on existing housing stock, meaning higher prices for renting and for buying. Higher rents are worse value for money, and the poorest households end up footing the bill for higher rents that they simply cannot afford. That is not fair, and it needs to be addressed.
As Members of this House will be aware, there are more than 100,000 people in our country who do not have a home of their own, who are in temporary accommodation or homeless. That is why I have been working with colleagues at the Housing and Finance Institute on a plan called Operation Homemaker, to build 100,000 homes over a year and a half to house the homeless and those in temporary accommodation. The HFI’s plan calls for a discounted rate of Public Works Loan Board funding for councils so that they can bring forward social housing, as Dover is doing. As we said in the Homemaker report,
“Long term and discounted PWLB can reduce or even eliminate the need for subsidy for listening term affordable rented housing.”
I am pleased that the Chancellor has listened and made new discounted funding available to councils that want to do more. I also welcome his commitment to reforms in relation to the unlocking of pension funds for investment, which is another key part of the Homemaker plan. I hope he will ensure that as those measures are implemented, they support the massive appetite for pensions fund investment in long-term, affordable and other housing. I am pleased that we have secured positive engagement with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on the Homemaker programme, as well as meeting the Prime Minister to discuss it, but I should like the Chancellor to meet me so that we can see what more can be done with the funding envelopes he has set out today to get those houses on the ground for the people in our country who need them most.
Having grown up in a council house, I know from personal experience the importance of stable housing, and how good housing can and does change lives. It is good for the country’s balance sheet as well, because investing in stable, secure housing saves money for the taxpayer. It eliminates the £1.6 billion spent on insecure temporary accommodation—and there are a staggering 125,000 children in temporary accommodation—and reduces the massive housing benefit bill. It also adds to GDP. Good, stable, affordable housing supports the mission, stated today, of getting people into work and helping them to stay in work.
I thank the Chancellor and the whole Treasury team again for their work on this Budget. I hope that, together, we will be able to keep Britain building, especially with a new national mission to house the homeless and build the affordable homes that our country needs.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke).
Today’s Budget comes at a challenging time for my constituents. It follows 13 years of turmoil, incompetence and empty promises under a Conservative Government. The Budget has promised £80 million to West Yorkshire over five years, or £16 million a year through the investment tax zones, but while I broadly welcome that, it is no replacement for the broken promises of the multibillion-pound return that Northern Powerhouse Rail would have brought.
This Government once spoke of the
“super-connected, globally competitive northern economy”
that would be made possible through the creation of Northern Powerhouse Rail. In their recent plans, however, they abandoned the much-given promise to connect Leeds and Manchester via a new high-speed line with a city centre stop in Bradford. Instead, the north is having to settle for a mere upgrade to existing lines, and we are told, yet again, not to gripe.
Done properly, Northern Powerhouse Rail would have supported an integrated urban area larger than Birmingham, linking Bradford and Leeds to form a coherent economic unit with a labour market of more than 1.3 million people and creating more than 600,000 jobs. There would also have been the projected £30 billion return from NPR over 10 years. So although it is welcome, when set against this backdrop the £80 million for the whole of West Yorkshire is underwhelming. The Government’s choice not to invest fully in NPR means that these short-term savings will have long-term consequences for the people of Bradford.
Bradford is an area of enormous economic potential, as PwC has recognised. I was there when it opened its Bradford office in 2019 during the pandemic, with just 80 staff members. The office has now grown rapidly to employ more than 200 people, because PwC had the vision to tap into the underused talent pool in Bradford. In a market where skills are in short supply, I urge other employers to follow its example. I only wish that the Government would do the same and invest in Bradford, because growth requires a skilled workforce.
During the past five years of this Conservative Government, the education attainment gap between the richest and the poorest has been growing at an alarming rate. I recently met the chief executive of School-Home Support, which is doing tremendous work with primary schools in my constituency. By working with families in both home and school settings, it is helping them to overcome obstacles that limit their children’s educational opportunities and life chances. That is working: attendance is improving and attainment is rising.
Because tackling inequality always requires a creative approach that fosters positive outcomes for health, education and community cohesion, there was a real possibility in my constituency, through a strong levelling-up bid, to use the redevelopment of Odsal stadium as a catalyst for regeneration. But despite Bradford being independently identified as the UK’s number one levelling-up opportunity, the Government decided against investing in Bradford. With the right investment, and with faith in areas such as Bradford, Britain’s economy could be on the verge of a new era of sustained long-term economic growth. My constituents need a Government who are on their side and a Budget that supports their ambitions. They have received neither from the party of gimmicks opposite—not over the last 13 years and certainly not today.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was bequeathed a difficult immediate inheritance last October, and in his autumn statement delivered on 17 November he took the first steps towards putting the nation’s finances back on a secure footing, laying the foundations for sustainable long-term economic growth. He is to be commended for what he has done in the past four months with policies that will significantly reduce inflation and cut Government spending on debt interest. His initiatives announced today on childcare, the abolition of the lifetime allowance, universal credit reform and supporting the disabled into work are to be welcomed, as are his announcements on investment allowances and tax breaks. However, in the aftermath of covid, there are ingredients to economic growth that are missing and it is important that this Budget is not the endgame but instead the first instalment of a plan for growth, with parts 2 and 3 being delivered in the autumn and this time next year.
I shall highlight three themes that I believe it is important to keep firmly in mind as we hopefully move on from the seismic shock that covid delivered and the devastating and heartbreaking ongoing impact of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. First, it is important to continue to support—albeit hopefully on a reducing scale—those people and businesses who have been most impacted by that cruel double whammy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is right to extend the energy price guarantee scheme for three months and to introduce the energy bills discount scheme for businesses. He is also right to support local councils with their leisure centre costs, and I welcome the support for the charitable and the third sectors.
My right hon. Friend needs to keep the situation under review, however, and I suggest that he needs to pay particular regard to the following groups. The first is the disabled, and I am thinking particularly of those with neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease, who have been seriously impacted by the dramatic increases in energy costs. We must not forget the ongoing challenges that they face. In the longer term, it may well be appropriate to introduce a social tariff to support such vulnerable groups, and I would urge the Government to look closely at how that might work. I am also conscious of the needs of businesses that face particular challenges. I have in mind such sectors as metal finishing, which use large amounts of electricity. They are losing work overseas and are not as yet included in the Government’s support for energy-intensive industries. I urge the Chancellor to keep that under review.
Secondly, it is important to put in place measures that enable businesses to thrive. The tax breaks and offsetting arrangements that my right hon. Friend has announced today are welcome, but they are only a start. In the autumn statement, he announced major reforms to business rates, but this work needs to be continued. In the short term, the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill must be introduced as quickly as possible, and in the longer term, work should continue so that business rates return to being a much smaller component part of a business’s operating costs.
The energy sector is a vital part of the UK economy. From a local perspective in East Anglia, there are significant opportunities for generating prosperity and jobs, ensuring our energy security and driving forward on the road to net zero. There is enormous potential in offshore wind, nuclear at Sizewell and the oil and gas sector, through the North sea transition deal, which also paves the way for hydrogen and carbon capture and storage, on which we did get some good news earlier.
If we are to realise the potential of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, it is vital that we reform our fiscal and regulatory regime, so that investment does not go overseas, whether to the US, Europe or beyond. The Chancellor has made a start in meeting that challenge and I look forward to the Government’s clean energy reset, which must enable the UK to retain its position as a global leader in the energy sector.
To achieve long-term economic growth and to enable people to realise their full potential, we need a skills revolution. There remains a great deal of work to do on that. It is right that the Chancellor is looking closely at it and has asked Sir Michael Barber to carry out a full review, but in the short term further education colleges, such as East Coast College in Lowestoft, are doing their great work with one arm behind their back. In the immediate future, there is an urgent need for more revenue funding to get through an incredibly challenging period. I highlight the need in the longer term to reform the apprenticeship levy.
Thirdly, let me turn to levelling up. Along with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), I co-chair the all-party group on the east of England. In December, along with the Local Government Association, we published the “Levelling up the East of England” report, which concludes that, on five of the levelling-up missions, there was very low confidence of their being achieved. One of those missions is infrastructure, so the lack of Government support for the Ely and Haughley junction rail improvements, from which the whole UK would benefit, is very disappointing. I urge the Government to continue to work with those in the region promoting this project.
On a positive note, I welcome the announcement of funding for the Lowestoft seafront jubilee parade project, which is an important part of the regeneration work taking place in Lowestoft and will help to revitalise the town, making it a compelling place to live, work and visit. However, I cannot hide my disappointment that none of the 12 proposed investment zones is in the east of England. In Lowestoft, we have a successful enterprise zone that is in need of refreshing. We had a false start last September, when Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk Council put forward exciting proposals for investment zones. It now appears that nowhere in the east of England will have an opportunity to even be on the starting grid. In that context, the mantra of “Enterprise, employment and everywhere” does ring slightly hollow.
In conclusion, this Budget is not the endgame. There is a lot of unfinished business. Last November, the Chancellor delivered his prologue. Today, he has provided act one of his strategy for growth. Acts two and three come in the autumn and next spring. I have highlighted the work that I believe remains to be done and, in the coming months, I look forward to working with him and his colleagues in the Treasury to meet those challenges.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who rightly implies that this Budget offers thin pickings for most in the UK—it certainly does for my constituents. It underlines the fact that we have seen no wage growth across the UK for 13 years. Taxes are at record levels and we have the OBR confirming today the grim news of record falls in living standards. It would be churlish of me not to welcome the moves on childcare, albeit with the powerful caveats mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), and the move on prepayment meters.
I want to highlight a message from Japan’s decade of lost growth, with which many in this House will be familiar. It took place at the end of the 1990s, when there was an annual rate of growth of just 1%. Between 2016 and 2025, the UK is set to experience even worse—an average growth rate of just 0.8%. We face a Conservative decade of lost growth, missed opportunities and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said from the Dispatch Box, managed decline. The Resolution Foundation last year underlined the significance of that lost decade for the UK: typical incomes are higher in Ireland than in the UK by 6%, in France by 10% and in Germany by 19%. Those are extraordinary figures that underline the point about the UK increasingly having become the sick man of Europe—a profoundly worrying state of affairs for us all.
The Resolution Foundation also highlighted last year that the Conservative party’s particularly toxic combination of low growth and persistently high income inequality has led to some in our country being particularly exposed to the cost of living, so it was particularly disappointing, although sadly not surprising, again to see nothing of substance in the Budget to tackle the rise in child poverty. Nearly 20% of children are living in poverty, including almost 16% in my constituency alone. We can do better as a country and we must do better for our constituents, although I fear it will fall to a future Labour Government to reverse the trends.
I am particularly disappointed that the Chancellor has not brought forward a bolder package to address the slow growth that Britain has experienced over the last decade and is likely to see over the next two or three years. Other G7 countries have seen faster growth—for example, in exports to the world’s largest economies. Germany and America, and even Italy and France, have seen their exports to the world’s fastest growing economies in the G20 racing ahead of Britain in the last decade. The poorly negotiated trade deal with Europe has clearly done considerable damage and the lack of the much promised US trade deal has not helped, but cuts in support to British businesses wanting to attend trade shows, a woeful Government website for helping exporters, late decisions by Ministers on which markets to prioritise, and then little follow-up from Whitehall when businesses go to those markets, are consistent criticisms from British businesses.
The other striking thing about the Budget is how little there is for our public services, which are heavily stretched—to put it generously. That is perhaps hardly surprising given the attacks on staff in those public services who have the temerity to ask for decent pay. We all remember only too well that on the Prime Minister’s watch nearly £30 billion has been lost to fraud, vanity projects and even crony contracts. That could have been invested in galvanising the green economic renewal that our country so desperately needs, or simply in our schools, hospitals and police.
In Harrow, our public services are crying out for investment. There is huge pressure on our GP surgeries. Over 2,000 people in Harrow had to wait more than a month for a GP appointment in January, and 8,000 had to wait between two and four weeks. That is not a criticism of the staff who work at our excellent GP surgeries; it is simply the fact that they are under huge pressure. Similarly, at Northwick Park Hospital, which serves my constituents, over 43%—almost 50%—of people attending accident and emergency services are having to wait longer than four hours. It is not that long ago that we had three clinics that supported GP surgeries across the borough of Harrow, ensuring that no one who needed to see a doctor or a nurse waited more than an hour. Many now face very long waits to do so, which inevitably increases pressure on the rest of the NHS.
The Chancellor knows that there are huge staff shortages in the NHS. He also knows that, if he backed the abolition of non-dom status, as Opposition Members have argued for, we could double the number of medical school places and train some 10,000 more nurses every year. That would certainly make a start. But to address the crisis in NHS, it is not just staff that we need. None of the 40 new hospitals that we have seen promised has actually had work begin on it, and all the while the need for new investment is growing across the NHS estate. At Northwick Park Hospital, as well as a rising backlog of essential maintenance, there is a need for capital investment in new intensive care beds to help to improve A&E services. This Budget does not offer much hope that there will be change in that regard.
Our borough’s schools need more investment, too, and a Government determined to put in place a plan to boost recruitment and help headteachers retain staff. Per-pupil funding is lower now in real terms than a decade ago. It was striking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had nothing to say on that.
The Chancellor also had nothing to offer on more funding for our police services. We have seen a drop of more than 75% in the number of police community support officers in London over the last eight years. Where once we had local police teams of a sergeant, three police constables and three or four PCSOs in every area of Harrow, now we are lucky to have one PC and one PCSO per ward, and even that has required extra investment by the Mayor of London to achieve. Funding for the Met police is so tight that it cannot fund town centre police teams in every part of London. The constituency of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), gets a town centre police team, but my Harrow West constituency does not.
I must say that this was a very disappointing Budget. I hope we will see a Labour Government soon to put right its mistakes.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas).
A few weeks ago, if I thought about the Budget, I probably thought the Chancellor should not bother: there would be no wriggle room, he had no money to spend and he might as well wait until the autumn when we have a better idea of what the public finances look like. However, we have had some quite significant announcements today. I remember being advised a few years ago that in a £2 trillion economy, any intervention of less than £1 billion probably will not touch the sides and is not worth that much excitement. I always look through the Red Book to see how many things score more than £1 billion and, out of a total of £20 billion in new policy announcements for the next financial year and the one after, the childcare changes, the full expensing, the fuel duty, the energy price guarantee and defence spending are all over £1 billion, so there are some quite significant items and some quite far-reaching changes there.
My constituents will particularly welcome the fuel duty freeze and the retention of the 5p reduction from last year, which will help them with their cost of living. I think it is right to retain the energy crisis support—I called for that on the cost of living support payments—but I am not quite sure why we did not just extend it until after next winter. If we think bills will be below £2,500 on the price cap, there is no cost to having the extension, but if we think bills will be higher than that we will need the extension, so I urge the Government to keep an eye on that and provide people with certainty for next winter that their bills will not be any higher than they have been this winter. I also agree that the long-overdue changes on prepayment meters make complete sense.
The childcare changes are hugely welcome, and I welcome the fact that they pick up many of the ideas in the Work and Pensions Committee report from a few weeks ago. At some point, though, we should stand back and think, “If we decided years ago that we would effectively give people free childcare from when their children were aged nine months until they leave school at age 18, would we structure it quite like this, with the complex number of schemes, the 30 hours, the tax-free childcare and all the other options, or is there a better way of delivering this for people that is not so quite cumbersome for them?”
As the parent of two children who will be three in three weeks’ time, I can say that 30 hours’ free childcare for some weeks of the year does not mean my wife can work full-time 46 weeks of the year; it means she can work part-time for some of those weeks. We should be careful with what we are offering. If we think we need wraparound childcare from 8 am to 6 pm for kids who are five, do we need that for kids who are two as well? I think we need to think through what we really want. If we want people back working nearly full time, do we need to have a slightly different offering?
I also welcome the support for swimming pools. I have three effectively council-owned swimming pools in my constituency, and there have been huge problems with their energy bills. The council tax rise was, in part, to pay for the heating of those swimming pools, so the support is welcome, and I hope that the council can now find a new use for all that money.
The pension tax changes are hugely welcome. I think we have all wrestled with how to stop the pension tax system, which was designed to limit how much tax relief people got, driving out of work people we desperately want to be in work. There have been a load of crazy ideas about just changing that for one sector of the economy, which would have been completely unviable. There was, I think, no alternative but to change the lifetime allowance significantly. I was a bit surprised that it was abolished completely—I actually think that it would be better to have a larger lifetime cap rather than an annual cap. I am not sure that I am that worried about restricting it year by year, but I think it is right to restrict how much tax relief people get over their whole working life.
It is worth noting that we have not changed the reduction in the allowance for people earning over £240,000 a year, so it will not be a big change for the highest earners. I also think that it is right that we have effectively frozen the tax-free lump sum at a quarter of the current lifetime allowance rather than have it increase, effectively, to anything. That has been sneaked into the detail.
Perhaps similarly to the childcare stuff, I think we need to step back and ask, “What are we trying to do with our tax regime for pensions?” We have always said that they should be tax-free on the way in and that people will then be taxed on the income that they draw down. We then have limits on how much tax relief people can have. Is the new system really a coherent, sensible way of incentivising pension saving? I think that, at some point, we should perhaps have a proper review asking, “What are we trying to do? Who are we trying to help? What are we trying to incentivise?” We could then use the £50 billion or so a year that we spend on this to achieve the outcomes that we want.
Likewise, full expensing for capital spend is probably welcome if it encourages and increases investment, but our way of giving tax effect to capital spend for businesses is somewhat haphazard. I would like to encourage people to reshore manufacturing, as the Americans have been doing over the past two decades, but what tax relief would people get for building a factory? Nothing for buildings. They would get some for the equipment embedded in those buildings, but nothing for the actual factory. Is that a sensible situation? Why would we not give tax incentives to build factories in the UK, but give a 100% allowance in year one to buy some more computers? That is a slightly counterintuitive situation. I am not sure how many businesses can really use 100% of their capital spend against profit in year one. I suspect that for those than can, it will be hugely welcome, but others will now have to defer those deductions and try to use them over a more sensible time.
I would have thought that, if we are to get to the end of the three years and make it permanent, we should just step back and ask, “What do we want to people to do, how do we incentivise that, and what is the best use of the money that we allocate to it?” This is a welcome short-term fix, but as with so many things, we need to make it work for a longer time.
Finally, I welcome the announcements on nuclear. I remember Rolls-Royce in Derby being very keen on small modular reactors about six or seven years ago. Could we please order some so that we can show the world that we can make that technology work and that we are committed to it? I hope that, by the time we get to the next Budget, we will actually have bought one. Then we can really go full steam ahead on these things.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the intriguing speech of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). He and several other Conservative Members seem to have doubts about some elements of this Budget. I am sure the Chancellor is pleased that he has managed to be in post long enough to deliver a Budget and is hoping not to torpedo the economy like his predecessor.
This is yet another Conservative Budget that fails to invest in public services, fails to address the cost of living crisis, fails to adequately support businesses and, most of all, fails to plan for the future. Today was the chance to unlock Britain’s potential, but the Budget has been a series of titbits to paper over the cracks of the Conservatives’ failure, after 13 years in government, to deliver consistent and green growth.
In September, the Government delivered a mini-Budget that shook our economy and delivered a huge shock to businesses and residents across my constituency. Meanwhile, we are in the middle of a largely avoidable cost of living crisis. Real household incomes are due to fall by 5.7% over the next two years—the largest fall in living standards since comparable records began.
Turning to business, over the past month I have spoken to so many businesses—locally and nationally—that are struggling, or want to grow but are being let down by the Government because of either the Government’s incompetence, sky-high energy bills, or delays in key decisions. Many are family-owned businesses: last week, I met a family in the pub that they run in Isleworth. Their previous energy contract ended in October, and they had no choice but to be locked into a contract that means they are going to be paying three times their previous energy costs over the next year. They are locked into a rate that could put them under. The energy bill relief scheme, which ends in March, will be of no help to them due to the sheer scale of that locked-in rise, and I am not sure that the draught duty extension announced today will be enough to help that pub.
When I visit businesses on Chiswick High Road, they tell me time and time again just how broken our business rates system is. It is outdated, unfair, and hammering businesses when they most need support. The chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, Martin McTague, has said today that
“today’s Budget will leave many feeling short changed…the Government’s lack of support for small firms in critical areas is glaring”,
and from what I can see, there has not been a lot of extra support from Make UK or the British Chambers of Commerce. That is why we need a Labour Government who will support businesses and workers and invest in public services. Between those things, we will get our economy growing.
Collaboration, not short-termism and delay, is key to how Government should behave towards business. Whenever I meet business leaders, I hear example after example of the Government’s inconsistency. The ban on offshore wind turbines that existed for more than a decade meant that UK firms were exporting wind turbines, rather than building them for our own energy grid. We know that the UK is falling behind in ensuring that electric vehicles and batteries are built in the UK. New plants could provide well-paid and skilled jobs here, but the Conservatives have simply failed to plan or invest. The chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said after today’s statement that
“There is little…that enables the UK to compete with the massive packages of support to power a green transition that are available elsewhere.”
He is another key business leader who does not agree that the Chancellor is removing obstacles that stop businesses investing, as he promised today. Delays in confirming future standards, such as vehicle safety standards, mean delay in future production decisions.
Of course, all of this stems from this Government lacking an industrial strategy and from inconsistency with other policies. Where does pausing HS2 and cutting the budget for walking and cycling sit with reducing congestion on our roads and our rail networks, net zero, and investing in jobs and manufacturing? The chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, Sir John Armitt, said that this lack of planning, especially around HS2, is impacting on the “confidence and certainty” that businesses need when making investment decisions. Whether it is housing, lab space, skills, or capacity in the energy grid, it is clear that the UK lacks the basic infrastructure we need to grow our economy. Businesses want to do the right thing; they want to invest in new and greener technology, like the industrial launderette or the retailer of green mopeds that are in my constituency. They want to grow—they want to shift to greener technology and grow their sales and their business—but they are not being given the tools to do so, and I see little, if anything, in today’s Budget to encourage them.
For many of my constituents, this Budget will simply continue the pain that 13 years of Conservative Governments have brought for them: underfunded public services, low growth and rising costs. Families and businesses across my constituency are struggling, yet this Budget offers them nothing new—oh, sorry, I do apologise, there is one new thing: the pre-announced “free” childcare places for one and two-year-olds. I spoke on this subject in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago. Will those places be properly funded so that childcare settings do not go under? Will the policy provide places for the children who will benefit the most: those whose parents are not yet getting 15 hours’ regular work per week, or those with disabled children?
In conclusion, this Budget does little to get this country out of the doom loop of low investment and low growth, yet high taxation.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). There are many things in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s Budget that I welcome, but I start with two. First, the doubling of the care relief threshold, giving an average tax cut of £450 for qualified carers. That is great news for Clacton, which has an economy that is based on care and tourism, and we need that incentive for care. Secondly, the £200 million for potholes—they are a hole in our budget—will be an enormous help.
One thing I must mention is the extension of tax relief for theatres for another two years, which has made me simply ecstatic. I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for theatre. Given the nature of how they work, theatres were the first to close in the pandemic, and the last to reopen. Their energy bills are soaring and they are struggling to get bums on seats. We cannot give up our great soft power offer that goes across the globe; since the time of Shakespeare, we have exported the English language to the world through theatre, film, television and the performing arts, which we must support. I have travelled the globe taking great theatre to every corner, and it is a soft power that we must not forget. They need help with their energy bills now, and I will shout about that a lot in the future.
We Conservatives pride ourselves on being the party of low tax and high growth, and on our ability to look after taxpayers’ money. It is worth saying again and again that it is not our money, the Government’s money or this House’s money; it is the people’s money—taxpayers’ money. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor stated earlier in the week, it was due to Conservative fiscal diligence —saving 80% of the finances coming in at the time—that we could afford to deal with the pandemic and not least the incredible furlough scheme that saved people’s jobs. However, people need a break—as much as some people need time off and a good holiday, perhaps visiting the wonderful sunshine coast of Tendring, people need a tax break for growth. With soaring energy bills caused by Putin’s horrific war, and inflation making pay rises ineffective and running a home nearly impossible for many, people need to be paying out less. If we allow the public to hold on to more of their money, what do they do? They spend it. We all know in this place that the economy goes round and round, so that is what we must do.
One area we must tackle is outdated taxes. Business rates and council tax are spectres from the past—decades out of date and not collecting anything resembling the real-life impact. For example, two people in a band D home will pay as much as four people next door, despite representing 50% less service use. A shop can have a far greater tax burden than many online and tech entrepreneurs, who can operate from small spaces. We need to grip these issues, and Governments have not gripped them for decades out of fear of reform.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my enthusiasm for the Government’s tackling of the social injustice whereby those on prepayment tariffs end up paying more than the rest of us? Does he agree that the reduction in prepaid tariffs to the average cost of everybody else’s tariffs, saving those people about £50 a year, is a good step forward?
Giles Watling
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I applaud him for bringing that up in the middle of what I have just been saying on these issues.
What have we done so far with these taxes? We pretend that the current system works by just adding pieces on. We increase corporation tax for the private sector and add additional precepts to local government, all to get around the fact that these outdated taxes no longer represent the reality they are supposed to target. We must not just tinker and tax; as we move forward, we must reform and renovate.
While smaller businesses need the financial assistance of paying less into the state, some companies can afford the opposite treatment. Those companies that profited from the pandemic must contribute to the one third of a trillion pounds in debt that we ran up during that time. They include oil and energy companies, which are making an absolute killing through enormous and unprecedented profits. At the same time, deprivation in parts of my constituency has not changed at all.
I am always resistant to the introduction of new taxes; however, introducing a temporary levy on covid profits would correct an injustice that we have all seen over the last few years. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken this on board; in our meeting yesterday I banged on about primary care at Clacton and District Hospital and banged on again about the rail links to the east of England—Ely and Haughley, which my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) brought up earlier—and the Chancellor’s ears must now be melting from those attacks that I keep giving him. However, he is very receptive on the whole to the needs of Clacton, and also to those of the country, and I commend his Budget.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), who is frozen in time for those of us of a certain vintage as a vicar who married into an extended Liverpudlian family. I think it was around the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we first met, when I was a little boy and you were the candidate in the Pontypridd by-election. We are all showing our age here.
When Ministers are asked what the Government are going to do about the cost of living crisis, they often reply, “We are taking tough decisions.” We already know that the tax burden is at its highest level ever, while inflation runs at 10.1% and interest rates stand at 4%. This raises the question of who is really bearing the brunt of these tough decisions. Is it the homeowners exiting fixed-rate deals only to be faced with new ones with higher rates, and with little money left over for spending on other essentials? Is it prospective first-time buyers who feel that ownership is just a pipe dream and, even if they cannot afford a mortgage, worry that rents could rise as landlords pass on higher mortgage rates? Is it the carer who finds that higher fuel prices are eating into their pay, as they rely on private transport to deliver vital services to vulnerable people? Or is it those who get paid on a weekly basis and struggle to budget for their monthly direct debits? For many people the cost of living crisis is not a political slogan; it is the reality of their daily lives. It is they who really are taking the tough decisions, not the Ministers who are sent out to defend the Government week in, week out.
The UK economy has been hit by a series of significant economic shocks, including the change in our trading relationship with the European Union, the covid pandemic and the sharp rise in global energy prices related to Russia’s brutal war on Ukraine and its people. For the United Kingdom, these shocks have eroded the terms on which we trade with the outside world. The prices we can get for the goods we sell have not kept up with the prices we have to pay for the goods we buy. The Government position has made us poorer as a country. The fall in our national real income has manifested itself in a rise in the prices we have to pay for the things we buy as consumers.
This position was not helped by the infamous “fiscal event” last September which saw the biggest programme of tax cuts in half a century, one that benefited the very wealthiest while adding tens of billions of pounds to the national debt; and I see from today’s announcement that the Conservative party has not learned from that.
The result of that fiscal event was the pound dropping to its lowest level against the dollar since 1985, and the UK is now the only country in the G7 to be forecast negative growth this year. The new Prime Minister has peddled the myth that he will halve inflation in a year, and we heard that from the Chancellor earlier—he said it will be less than half. This is in the hope that people somehow believe prices will be halved as well. That goes against economic orthodoxy: when prices stay high, they very rarely come down, and they certainly will not be halved if inflation is halved.
Richard Graham
Page 9 of the “Impact on households” distributional analysis has a chart that clearly shows that the major beneficiaries of this Budget are those in the bottom decile of earnings, and then the values in the graph slope downwards so that they are negative for those in the deciles above 7, to 8, 9 and 10—the most well-off in the country. Therefore, this Budget very much helps all our constituents who are the least well off. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole point of public spending and taxation is to help our least well-off constituents?
Chris Evans
I have always admired the hon. Gentleman. When I first came into the House, the first intervention that I took was from him. We talked about high unemployment and I think he said something along the same lines. I urge him to look at that graph again, however, because those are frozen thresholds. There is real danger when we look at the fine print of the Budget. What always happens is that the euphoria of the Chancellor’s Budget speech is unpicked by the media on Saturday and Sunday, so I hope that we can have a discussion on Monday about the same issue.
It is families who pay the price in the Budget, which appears to be a theme across the Government’s economic plans. The developments on energy prices, about which we are all concerned, have been particularly stark. In October, as the energy price guarantee was put in place to moderate what would have been an even higher increase in Ofgem’s price cap, the typical energy price bill was still nearly twice as high as a year earlier. Who knows what the Government will do after June? Household energy prices will not come down to previous levels any time soon, and from a cost of living perspective, it is the level of what people must pay that matters. Energy bills will remain a challenge for many people, particularly those on lower incomes. Again, I am afraid that the evidence suggests that the Government are not siding with working people and have not made the oil and gas giants pay their fair share.
The story is similar for another essential in life: food. Before the war, Russia and Ukraine supplied a significant share of the global consumption of agricultural products such as sunflower oil, wheat and barley. With disruption to those supplies, prices increased sharply over 2022, which drove up food prices in UK shops and supermarkets, including for the basics that everyone has in their cupboard or fridge. In some supermarkets, a pint of milk increased from 80p to 95p, pasta went up from 45p to 70p and some brands of butter are up to nearly £5. They may seem like small increases, but when added up, even the smallest changes can make a huge difference at the end of the weekly shop. Every day, people see that for themselves and do not know how they will pay for it.
Before the crisis, food bank usage was on the rise. Between April 2021 and March 2022, the Trussell Trust distributed more than 2.1 million emergency food parcels to people in crisis, which is an increase of 14% compared with the same period in 2019-20. Food is one of life’s essentials—we cannot get away from that; we need it to live—and the fact that many people across the country can no longer afford to pay for it is a disgrace in the 21st century.
The issue is deeply affecting my constituents in Islwyn. The Trades Union Congress found that one in five people in Islwyn have missed a meal or gone without food during the present crisis. According to Action for Children, 4,578 children were living in poverty in my constituency in 2020. We can no longer leave the hard-working people and children of this country to go hungry.
I cannot talk about the Budget without talking about housing, or the lack thereof. New mortgage rates are higher than they were a year ago, which means that about one in 10 households will see their mortgage rates go up this year. If new mortgage rates rise by 3%, as market rates currently suggest, the typical monthly interest payment will go up by just under £250 for everyone. In the Budget, however, there is no mortgage emergency plan or the plan for affordable housing that we were promised.
The people who are affected are simply playing by the rules and working hard for little reward. The UK economy is suffering because of the global energy price shock and a decade of poor productivity growth, which has been made worse by erecting huge barriers to trade with the EU. Those circumstances are making everyone poorer, with consequences for low-income households with children, people with disabilities and poor pensioners.
We desperately need urgent support to be targeted at the hardest-hit households, plus an investment in skills, infrastructure and business finance to rebalance the economy away from growth based on consumer spending fuelled by rising house prices towards business investment and exports. After 13 long years, the Government can be characterised by low growth, low wages, higher prices and Government waste. Frankly, it is time for a change. This country deserves better.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
It would be churlish not to welcome some aspects of this Budget. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Yes, absolutely. The extra money for childcare is not comprehensive and it does not recreate the life-changing Sure Start of the last Labour Government, but it will make a real difference to parents of young children. But what chutzpah! What chutzpah of the Chancellor to steal some of the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and take credit for addressing childcare costs, but then delay implementation of the policy until the middle of next year, in time for a Labour Government to pay for it.
I welcome the action taken on prepayment meters, which will make a real difference to some of the poorest families in our country. But again, what chutzpah. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), my constituency neighbour, has been urging every Chancellor since George Osborne to resolve this inequality. I welcome the action taken to allocate £20 billion—over 20 years—for carbon capture, use and storage. But again, what chutzpah. Thirteen years ago, the incoming Tory-Liberal Government inherited £4 billion already allocated to CCUS, and they cut it.
Too often, debate in Parliament degenerates into set speeches, but the Budget debate is one of those occasions when we really can take on each other’s speeches and respond to what has been said. I listened very carefully to the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who attacked the Chancellor and pointed out the failures of his party to adopt a consistent economic policy to lower the overall tax take. He said that they should have thought through the tax take policy in
“a way that would actually work”.
It is just a pity that he was not part of any Government who could have done anything about it.
The question my constituents would ask is: work for whom? I have spoken before in this Chamber of the queues that stretch down the Ealing Road in my constituency and around the corner, where I live, in Chaplin Road—extending over half a mile—waiting for the food bank at the Shri Sanatan Mandir to open. For the past 13 years, the economy has not actually been working for them. It has been working for the individuals who have managed to amass a pension pot in excess of the £1,060,000 lifetime allowance limit. After today, it will work even more for those people, as they can shelter even more money from tax.
The right hon. Member also posed what I thought was a rather rhetorical question to the House. He asked:
“But who knows best how to spend their money—the businesses or the Government?”
He did not stay for an answer, but my constituents might have replied: best to achieve what? If it is to spend that money in such a way as to maximise the return to their shareholders, the right hon. Member is correct: the answer is business. However, if it is to spend that money in such a way as to achieve the maximum public good, it is undoubtably the Government, by using the money paid in tax to keep us safe by paying our armed forces; to keep us healthy by paying for our NHS; or to keep us wealthy by investing in education and apprenticeships, so that those businesses have the supply of skills and labour they need to make that profit in the first place.
I also support the Government’s desire to boost enterprise and to grow wealth in our country. I understand the case for R&D tax credits, even at the level of 100%, but they should not contradict the Government’s other objectives. If they pay those credits to international companies such as Amazon, which will pay no tax in the UK while siphoning its profits out of the country, it is not our economy that they are growing.
Equally, it makes no sense to be paying 100% of the cost of oil and gas companies such as BP and Shell for exploitation of new fossil fuel reserves in the North sea, which will contradict our net zero objectives. These companies are already making record profits on the backs of bill payers in the UK. I would ask the Chancellor to put a green filter on R&D tax credits.
At a time when our household energy bills are the highest in history, the OBR says that real household disposable income is decreasing by 4.3% this year and by 5.7% over the next two years. That is the largest decline since the year before I was born—and I, though I may feel like one, am no spring chicken.
The Chancellor had four E’s, but he missed out the most pressing E of all: the environment. The Committee on Climate Change set out that we will not achieve our net zero target without a strategic programme to reform our regulatory frameworks and market design that galvanises between £300 billion and £430 billion of investment and removes the barriers to the construction of a new renewable energy infrastructure. I am afraid this Budget simply does not measure up.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you probably did not hear an interview I did with BBC Coventry and Warwickshire Radio back in 2021. I was talking about the pandemic. I said that inflation was something we should be concerned about and that it could potentially rise to 7%. I had been talking to local businesses, such as the Box Factory, Vitsoe and Picturesque picture frames, which were seeing huge rises in the price of glass, cardboard and so on.
Spin forward a couple of weeks and the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), said on Sky News that people’s fears about inflation were unfounded. I am not sure where the then Prime Minister had his head at that time—whether it was in an ice bucket or in the sand—but his Chancellor should have pointed out to him what was going on. It was really clear to businesses in my constituency what was going on, and that was long before Russia’s illegal invasion. It was not just the fact that the price of gas was going to increase from that point, but we had no energy storage. It was rather like going into the pandemic when we had no personal protective equipment.
Spin forward 12 months and we had a new Prime Minister, a new Chancellor and the kamikaze Budget. Straight after that statement, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) said, in answer to my question, that I was fearmongering when I said there would be a run on the pound. What happened next? The Bank of England was left to bail out this Conservative Government. In any other organisation, the directors would have been sacked long before this point of 13 years if the shareholders had been able to have their say.
Now we find ourselves on, I think, a fourth Chancellor. We hear that things are getting better versus last October. Well, one would hope that they are, given where we were. If we stand back and look at where we are, we have the lowest growth in the G7—even sanctioned Russia might be ahead of us now. The World Bank describes us as having the weakest economy. The medium-term forecast does not look good. Inflation is one of the highest in the G20. It is not rocket science how we seem to have got here.
There are some positives in the Budget. In particular, I applaud the idea of enterprise zones around universities. Those investment zones will be a very good thing and I would welcome more of them, because I believe they can be dynamos of a new economy. On the cost of living, I certainly welcome the extension of the energy price guarantee and parity on charges for prepayment meters with those who pay by direct debit. That is long overdue.
However, on the impact on real wages, we have heard that real household incomes will fall by 5.7% over the next two years, the worst performance since records began 60 years ago. Compare that to France, where the average French family will be 10% richer than those of us in the UK. In Germany, they will be 20% richer. Both are working approximately 20% less than us. That is the social scandal of our time. At the same time, mortgages in the wake of last year’s kamikaze budget have increased by, on average, £2,000 on a variable rate mortgage. Given the frozen income tax thresholds that the Chancellor previously announced, we have a £500 increase for those on the basic rate and a £1,000 increase for those on a higher rate.
I welcome some of the moves on childcare, but our proposals are a lot better. A nursery provider in my constituency texted me earlier to say that the funding equates to 26p per child per hour, and will not make a blind bit of difference. On pensions, I do not understand who will be the great beneficiary. What percentage of the population will benefit from going from £1.06 million to £1.8 million? It sounds like the super-wealthy in our society—a big win for the wealthiest, and perhaps more help for bankers but less for ordinary folk. It will do nothing to get retired consultants back into the NHS. It is too late.
Matt Western
I will not, because we are short of time. Corporation tax is rising to 25% from 19%. George Osborne told us that we had to reduce it from 29%, which would ensure increased revenues because people would be keener to pay it at a lower rate. That does not seem to have transpired. Let us compare that to France and the US, which have much higher levels than us today. How much tax revenue have we lost from corporation tax since 2014?
The lack of a coherent industrial strategy is striking. I want to focus on the automotive sector. We have just one small gigafactory in the UK, versus five in Germany and five more planned. Labour has gone on record to say that we want to build them. Those investment decisions are ebbing away from us. Ford has divested out of Dunton. Tesla had the opportunity to come to the UK but said that it would not because of Brexit. We need companies such as Northvolt and others to come and invest in the UK. Mike Hawes of SMMT said:
“There is little that enables the UK to compete with massive packages of support to power a green transition that are available elsewhere.”
Make UK echoes that. Our energy bills are approximately 100% higher than the average of those major European nations.
Small businesses have been ignored once again. The owner of a pub in Warwick has been in touch to say that he will have to close, because he cannot afford it. Another in Leamington has said, “That’s it. We’re going to close in April. There was just nothing for us.” The Federation of Small Businesses supports that, saying that it believes that all small businesses have been short-changed by the Budget—a point backed up by the chamber of commerce. I heard nothing for the self-employed, but maybe I am mistaken.
This has been another Budget with next to no mention of a proper coherent industrial strategy. We have heard a lot about potholes, but the Government cut £400 million from the highways maintenance pothole budget, and then they announce, miraculously, a £200 million budget today. It all seems a little Paul Daniels to me. Ordinary people and small businesses have been left short-changed by the Chancellor’s announcements. Somehow, the major promise from today’s Budget is a pensions bonanza for the very wealthy. Therein lies the truth of this Budget: it is for the very few.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
It is the thinnest of gruel in another Westminster Budget, and one from which the people of Scotland will benefit very little, whether they are self-employed, employed or in need of state support. There was one nugget of truth—one kernel of wisdom—in the Chancellor’s remarks: independence is better than dependence. That is something that we have known on the SNP Benches for quite some time and I am glad that the Chancellor can accept it. Later, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) trumpeted the success of Irish GDP growth, investment, dynamism and entrepreneurialism, forgetting that if Ireland were still shackled to the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, it would have the autonomy to do no such thing, to empower its people in no such way and to develop that growth not one bit.
Let me first touch on the absence of any increase or inflation to the public sector mileage rate, which was set in 2011. That would have been very well received by hundreds of thousands of ordinary working people. This Government never tire of talking about ordinary working people—I assume they have met some, at least once or twice. Increasing that mileage rate to something more reasonable would have been well received, as 45p does not begin to cover the cost of inflation, much less the cost of motoring. That should have been put up to about 60p.
Last year, this Government removed the rebate on red diesel for plant and machinery, contributing to an already dire situation with construction inflation and putting a real millstone around the neck of capital investment by the Scottish Government and Scottish councils; it is the same in Wales and in England. However, there is a difference: the Treasury pockets the benefit on English capital investment programmes, but it also pockets the benefit on Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish capital investment programmes. That is yet another example of giving with one hand and taking away with the Westminster sleight of hand.
On defence, we can see on page 31 that the combined resource and capital DEL budgets are £51.7 billion for 2024-25. This Tory Government like to march around with no shortage of puff in their chest, talking about being the guardians and vanguards of defence in the European theatre. Well, I’ve got news for them. They are claiming to want to uplift the budget to 2.25% of GDP, which would give a £58 billion budget on 2023 projections. They say that at some indeterminate point in the future they will increase that to 2.5%, which would give £65 billion for defence and please some of their critics on their own Benches. The problem they are going to have is that Germany has committed 2%, and 2% of German GDP is £72 billion. So this Government have consigned the UK’s defence force to playing second fiddle on the European stage.
I understand the Chancellor’s concern because the Ministry of Defence is guilty of eye-watering waste, but the problem they now have is that, to keep the Secretary of State for Defence in his job, they have had to give him some concessions. However, it is not enough and it is clear that the Secretary of State is writing rhetorical cheques that the Chancellor will not cash.
On pubs, there is a public health emergency with alcohol misuse in this country. A lot of that stems not from pubs or restaurants, but from supermarket off-sales, where people buy large quantities of low-cost alcohol and consume it in an unsupervised way, day after day, developing extremely damaging habits. I genuinely welcome the amendments the Government has introduced to duty on draught products, but they need to go further and take a holistic view in order to address the spectre of duty, VAT rates and energy costs over pubs. All of us in this place have pubs in our constituencies that are extremely valuable to our communities. We should all realise that when they are gone, they are gone and not coming back. So proper fiscal intervention to support pubs is the right thing to do. Failing to do that is penny wise, pound foolish.
In this Parliament, I and my colleagues are continually harassed and Scotland is habitually derided by the superior, patronising forces of Unionism—[Interruption.] Maybe the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) wants to intervene? In reality, after 16 years of government, the progress we have made under the constraints of devolution are genuinely remarkable. I am hugely proud of those achievements, even though they cannot be accepted in here by Labour, Lib Dems or Tories. They enjoy the rhetoric; they are less keen on facts.
Scotland is the principal destination for foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom. Scotland is the most productive area in the United Kingdom out of 12 regions, with the exception of London and the south-east. Employees on a median income pay less tax in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Someone living in a band D property pays £600 less in council tax in Scotland than in England. England has a tax on ill health of £9.35 for a prescription, whereas prescriptions are funded in Scotland. There are 65 more police officers per 100,000 of population in Scotland, and 226 more nurses and midwives. The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who is not in his place just now, is very concerned about how hard it is to get a GP appointment in England; we have challenges in Scotland, where there are 95 GPs per 100,000 of population, so I do not know how bad it must be in England, where there are only 79. Business rates kick in at £12,000 in England and £15,000 in Scotland.
We have achieved those gains—to the benefit of our communities, our enterprise and our population in Scotland—despite this Union. Imagine what we could do when we are rid of it.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Thirteen years of Tory Government have seen a sustained fall in living standards across my constituency, accelerated by the disastrous mini-Budget and the Truss mortgage premium. My constituents in Warrington have frankly had enough of a cost of living crisis made in Whitehall. It is no longer just those on the lowest incomes who are feeling this hurt, but many who would previously have considered themselves comfortable on the kind of salary on which they could once have raised a family.
We have seen widespread industrial unrest as the pay and living standards of our junior doctors, nurses, posties, lecturers, railway workers, barristers, police and others have been squeezed, while the Government try to balance the books on their backs. The OBR reports that living standards are expected to fall by 6% this fiscal year and next, as inflation outstrips growth—the largest two-year fall since ONS records began. At my weekly surgeries and my doorstep surgeries across Warrington North, the picture is a depressing one.
This Budget does not meet the ambition that we have for our town or for the country. It commits £400 million to levelling-up partnerships in a range of key Tory marginals, but there is nothing for devolution to Warrington and Cheshire. In fact, any devolution settlement support, according to paragraph 3.118 of the Red Book, is contingent on a model with a
“mayor or directly elected leader”—
something for which there is no local appetite. Why do we need another layer of politicians and bureaucracy to make more of our own decisions about our local priorities, when our existing structures are working?
Warrington North has the second biggest nuclear workforce in the country. I welcome the news on the green taxonomy changes for the nuclear sector that the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, which I co-chair, has been calling for, but constituents in the nuclear sector are already WhatsApping me memes about the small modular reactor competition. First, far from being new, it was already tried and scrapped by George Osborne in 2016. Secondly, there are concerns about the UK’s competitiveness in this sphere against, for example, GE Hitachi, which has just seen a major pre-licensing milestone in Canada, potentially putting our sovereign SMR sector at a disadvantage in such a competition. Having read through the Red Book in the time available, I cannot see any money allocated for Great British Nuclear either, for all the Chancellor’s warm words about its importance in launching it today.
I welcome the support for childcare costs. However, the issue is not just affordability but availability. The timescales for this support mean that many children will be in school before their parents see any benefit at all. Nor does the lack of anything for social care help families who are caring for parents and children or grandchildren at the same time to get back into the workforce. That is not nearly good enough, especially at a time when my local council is having to spend 70% of its budget on statutory care services—a situation that will only get worse over time with an ageing population with increasingly complex care needs.
The announcement of reforms to the medicines approval process is welcome, as it means that patients should receive access to emerging medicines, including psychedelics, sooner than they otherwise might. MDMA and psilocybin are due to receive approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in 2024 and will be approved later this year in Australia. Hopefully, UK patients will gain access simultaneously or soon afterwards. In the meantime, however, we will continue to lose, on average, 18 people a day to suicide, and our veterans and victims of crime will continue to suffer needlessly with post-traumatic stress disorder. The funds that the Chancellor committed today to the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and to the suicide prevention fund, which involves voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations, could be working much harder and going much further if we would only commit ourselves to what colleagues across parties have been calling for: a drug scheduling policy based on evidence, rather than stigma, misinformation and political expediency.
I welcome the measures to support leisure centres—I recently led an Adjournment debate on the need for them—and the differential for draught beer, which will also be greatly welcomed by the all-party parliamentary group on pubs, which I chair. However, while there are aspects that I welcome, this Budget has been lacking in big-vision ideas to get our country moving. Halving inflation does not mean prices coming down; it only means that they rise more slowly. Without a proper pay rise for the country, too many of the essentials of everyday life will still be out of reach for too many, and our local food banks and charity sector will still be stretched far beyond capacity.
There was an opportunity to reform the apprenticeship levy to make it work for businesses, for industry and for apprentices themselves, but this returnerships proposal that no one asked for is what we have instead. That was an opportunity missed. There was also a missed opportunity to improve our bus sector—buses are the most used form of transport in the country—and a missed opportunity to do more for our small businesses: the Federation of Small Businesses has described this Budget as irrelevant to the 5.5 million-strong small business community. There was a further missed opportunity to reform business rates radically to bolster our high streets. However, the biggest missed opportunity of all was the failure to make those who can most afford to pay do just that. A number of companies and sectors, including companies in the oil and gas sector, have made more profit over the last few years than they know what to do with. While my constituents face the highest tax burden in decades, little seems to have been done to tax those giants with the broadest shoulders more.
Sticking plasters are not enough. The Government could have gone much further and been much fairer. Politics is about priorities, and we can see from this Budget today that the people's priorities have been overlooked and millions will understandably be feeling short-changed as a result.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
As other speakers have said, there is always something in a Budget to commend, and some elements that are admirable. It is the totality that needs to be looked at, and it is not simply the headline figures that are announced by the Chancellor but the drill-down figures that will appear in days to come that will constitute the analysis of this Budget.
The support for carbon capture and storage is welcome, but the question remains, “Why not in Scotland and in the North sea, which has about 30% of Europe’s capacity, given its geology?” Prepayment meters are rightly being levied, as many Members have mentioned, but why has that not been done already? All that was required was a ministerial letter to Ofgem, which could and should have been sent before winter arrived. It is still snowing in Scotland, and people are freezing. This should have been dealt with a long time ago, as should other aspects of energy that have not been touched on.
There was another welcome announcement about new technology, but where were the announcements about hydrogen or long-duration battery storage? More than 17% of our turbine capacity in the UK, not just in Scotland, has been turned off, not because the winds are not turning the blades but because the national grid does not have the capacity. There is a solution, which is to store it and to use it. That is why we need battery storage and why we need hydrogen—and, as we see from the conflict in Ukraine, we can also get ammonia from it.
Those aspects should have been considered, but, as I have said, this must be looked at in the round. What the Budget does show is that there is wealth in society, and what I want to consider is where that wealth has come from and to whom it is largely going. The position remains that Scotland is energy-rich, yet the majority of Scots are going to find themselves fuel-poor. The oil and gas wealth that we were told in 2014 was all but gone, and would simply be a burden on poor Scotland if we went independent, is now being used as a crutch by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition, there is the situation of offshore wind. At the same time, however, fuel poverty continues to scar Scotland in not just rural but urban areas. There was no mention of unregulated fuels, on which some 8% of people in Scotland still depend. The cost has been even greater than that of gas and electricity, but no steps have been taken to address it.
No steps have been taken to address the needs of those who live off the gas grid, whose fuel poverty has worsened. That can be because they depend on unregulated fuels or because, in urban areas, those in 1960s multi-storey flats or other tenements where gas cannot be provided are dependent on all-electric supplies, which are usually the most costly and the most ineffective in providing warmth. What arrangements have been made for them? Why could the alternative fuel funding not be made available for them? They are in clear need, and that should have been extended to them. We need support for those using unregulated fuels and those in all-electric households in urban and rural deprived areas.
There remains the question of the social tariff. It has been trailed by the Government but we still have not seen an announcement. It is provided by other countries across the world, especially on the European continent, and it is about time that we saw a social tariff delivered here for those who are most vulnerable. We are not seeing support for the poorest, but we are seeing wealthy pensioners being provided for. Earlier this week there was a meeting at which research provided by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust pointed out that since the inception of the welfare state in this country we have always held the belief that there should be a safety net below which nobody should go.
This safety net was initially provided through supplementary benefits. Now it is meant to be provided by universal credit, whether someone is in work or in receipt of a pension, yet the situation that our society now faces is that this is not providing the basic essentials for humans to survive. They do not even have the basic essentials, leaving aside the need for people to deal with emergencies such as debt crises. It simply does not allow for day-to-day living. The shortfall is £35 per week for a single person and £66 for a married couple. The fact is that people in this country are going under, yet the only people being rewarded in this Budget are those who have the greatest wealth, whether to invest further in pensions or to pass on to those who will benefit from the wealth they have accrued. Society has to be judged by how it looks after its poorest and most vulnerable.
Of course, all of this is occurring in a country that is energy rich. We are talking about probably the majority of Scots, over half the population, being in fuel poverty. Whole areas will be existing in fuel poverty, yet Scotland’s energy wealth is being used by the UK to make the rich richer. Scotland’s wealth is being extracted and our people are being left bereft. It is not just the oil and gas that I mentioned earlier—let us look at what is anticipated to come from renewable energy.
I asked the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy what energy was going to be provided from Scotland to south of the border. I was told that at the present moment 35 terawatts of energy is going south. I confess that I had to investigate what a terawatt was—I had heard of a kilowatt, a megawatt and a gigawatt, but I did not know what a terawatt was. A terawatt is 1 billion kilowatts. The average household in Scotland uses a 4,000 kilowatts per annum. Scotland is sending 35 terawatts south, and BEIS anticipated that by 2030, Scotland would be providing 124 terawatts. That is 124 billion kilowatts of electricity, yet our people are freezing as I speak. People are unable to power their homes. Our energy is being taken. You took our oil and gas, and you are seeking to take our offshore and onshore wind. This is simply unacceptable. This Budget enriches those who are already rich in England while it exploits the natural bounty of Scotland and further impoverishes the poor people of Scotland and across the United Kingdom.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I am on the optimistic side of the spectrum that the Chancellor was talking about today. I would welcome measures on prepayment meters and some support for suicide prevention, but the most sensible thing he said today was about the contribution that those of us in our mid-50s can make to the economy. Overall, however, it is truly astonishing, knowing how many thousands of pounds worse off people are after 13 years of this Government, that the further low growth we are anticipating will now continue for another two years.
This Government completely lack ambition for the country, but they particularly lack ambition for young people. There was nothing in this Budget for young people, particularly on housing help. There was a failure to reform the apprentice levy as promised, and they are still not doing enough for people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The Government have broken their promise to fix social care. The stark reality is that more than 150,000 people have died waiting for state social care, and 57,000 people would have received support and they now will not. The Chancellor has promised far less funding for adult social care than he recommended when he was Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
I welcome the fact that people who are facing the cost of living crisis will have the fuel duty cut, but the Chancellor has made some clear choices. That £6 billion initiative, plus the additional £1 billion for the pension rise—so £7 billion—would have gone some way towards meeting that social care commitment that he wants to see. What happened to the health and care workforce plan that was so widely trailed? Clearly the Chancellor did not get the thing that he has already committed to past himself in the Treasury—we are expecting it sometime soon.
Childcare providers are at risk of collapse, leaving parents not only struggling with the cost of childcare but unable to find childcare in the first place. Extending hours is simply not enough. Childcare provision is not just about babysitting services; it is about children’s wider education. President Biden has put forward a family support package in America, and the Labor party leadership in Australia have looked at childcare completely differently, saying that it is
“an economic reform which promotes inclusion and growth—not a babysitting service. An economic reform that delivers benefits to two generations of Australians…The best start in life for our children…Flexible support for modern families…And a…boost to productivity and participation”.
What we have had today does not meet those challenges and it looks as though it does not even meet the basics that were being asked for.
At the weekend, I was pleased to join the Bristol Women’s Commission at its event on the caring economy and how it can add to our productivity. We looked at the infrastructure for carers, improving working conditions, and pay and skills for low-paid care workers. That is what this Government need to be doing. I commend the work of the BWC. Unfortunately, it looks as though the Green party in Bristol will not be supporting the BWC in the future. I hope it changes its mind about that, because the BWC is doing some fantastic work.
The apprenticeship levy is a massive failure. Starts are falling backwards; the cohort is made up mainly of people in senior positions; and only 13% of degree-level apprentices come from neighbourhoods in the bottom fifth of deprivation, with twice as many coming from the most advantaged backgrounds. That is not good enough. As for the new traineeship—or “returnee-ship”—the shiny new thing we have seen today, the Department for Education has been a dreadful failure on apprenticeships and the idea that it can help people come back is not one we can believe.
Overall, there is nothing in the Budget for the west and the south-west. Again, we have been completely ignored by this Government. Transport is a crucial issue for us in Bristol South. We can support tackling the climate crisis and moving towards net zero only if we have a functioning transport system, and this Government simply do not care about that. Many of my constituents rely on buses; the elderly and young people going to education need a bus service. With the end of the bus recovery grant, my constituents would like to know what on earth the Government are going to do to support them.
It looks as though the only mention of the west country in the Red Book is in the section about Devon, which says we are going to get some money to deal with potholes. That is literally the only mention of the west and the south-west that I can find in this entire shiny document—[Interruption.] The chuntering from those on the Government Benches is about their MPs. If that is the best that that wall of Tory MPs across the west country can come up with, I look forward to them disappearing. Much more could have happened on this, as we are a good, functioning economy. The Red Book has 116 pages, but there is nothing in it for Swindon, Bristol, Filton, Plymouth, Stroud, Truro or Falmouth. It is a complete waste of our time for the south-west, and the sooner the Tories go, the better.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and her analysis of “nothing for Bristol South”. I feel that it is the same for York and York Central. The Government have had 13 years and the OBR is hardly complimentary, with productivity dragging, growth the lowest in the G7 and the pace of change far too slow. Of the last 13 wasted years, the past six months have been the hardest for families, businesses and communities; we now have 13.4 million people living in poverty. With sanctioning regimes now to become more brutal and ill people forced into work, we know who is paying the price for this Budget.
For those who got us through the last few years—the health workers, teachers, care staff and so many more—there is the longest pay squeeze for 200 years. Where is their pay rise? Household budgets are set to fall by 5.7%, and 5.1 million people will be hit by stealth taxes. It is the people who have worked their guts out over the last few years, while the top 1% have gained, who are paying for the chaos in Downing Street that has besieged our economy. Take Brexit, which is now costing the economy £100 billion in lost output every year as Britain is becoming increasingly isolated and irrelevant; take the 44-day Prime Minister, wiping £30 billion off the economy overnight. With our global reputation now in tatters, our influence to attract investment, jobs and the very best from across the globe has been stymied.
Thirteen years, and Britain is not booming; it is burning—burning with the injustices that we see each day in our constituencies. Our NHS is grinding to a halt without the staff to heal the sick. There are second homes and Airbnbs for the rich, while ordinary families are locked out of home ownership or even a place to rent. Yet there is nothing in today’s Budget to ignite a new generation of house building. If we on the Opposition Benches had not been fighting each and every day to highlight the prepayment scandal, where the very poorest were forced to pay the most for their energy, the injustice would have just continued. I am glad the Chancellor has at last taken heed, and I trust that compensation is also on its way. Swimming baths were closing their doors as the float never came in time, while the Prime Minister spent tens of thousands on his own; again we had to fight, and at last the lifeline has been thrown.
Let me turn to childcare. It is right to invest in our children, but ratios matter because quality matters. The cost of childcare in my community is stripping parents and children of any opportunity. The average monthly cost of childcare in York is £1,083.33, while the average wage is just £1,980: 54.71% of wages spent on a service that enables parents to access work. Today’s announcement takes us forward but we need a workforce plan to ensure that those working in the sector—mainly women—receive a wage that reflects the value of their job. It is always the same with the Tories: too little, too late. It matters, and it matters to my community in York.
On hearing about Great British Nuclear, I think of the Great British Railways competition, which would accelerate investment in Britain’s rail supercluster and place York back on the global map for rail. The competition was launched over a year ago and the announcement is over nine months late and still to come. Of course, that has an impact on the 5,500 jobs in advanced and digital rail in our city, with nervousness that it may not come at all in favour of political expediency elsewhere. Had it landed in time, we would already be accelerating the economic, research and innovation opportunities, as well as getting our trains running.
BioYorkshire—Britain’s largest green new deal—is about transitioning to a sustainable future while creating 4,000 green collar jobs, upskilling 25,000 people, generating income through start-ups and spin-outs, cutting carbon and landfill, returning value back to the Treasury, and creating new insect and hemp technologies. Quite frankly, it is one of the most globally transformative projects around. It was first raised in this House two and a half years ago, but we are still waiting. We have been waiting years for this Government to make up their mind how to fund it. All the time, opportunity is wasted, and our planet is melting and burning.
Born out of XR Stories, our creative sector has made York a UNESCO creative city of media arts and is leading the sphere in generating digital creative jobs in digital film, games and creativity, but where is the funding opportunity? Brilliant artists, technicians and so many more are waiting for the chance to help Britain back to its feet, but there is not a penny in the Budget for York’s science and technology superpower. Of course, we also have York Central—a site that is begging for attention and a major opportunity for investment—but yet again the Government pass it by: too little, too late.
Those are three brilliant clusters that the Government should be fighting to invest in—three brilliant projects that will not just level up my city by creating the jobs that are desperately needed in post-industrial York, but will benefit the region and the country and advance tech, science and climate mitigation around the world.
In York we think big, we plan hard, we build strong relations and partnerships, we attract the very best brains and we determine the greatest opportunities, but we have a Government who do not back those opportunities for our young people. As we have shown in the past, when people put confidence in York, we go far in what we achieve. Instead, we have seen nothing today. The next generation is losing hope and losing the chance to do something special. The Treasury is losing income and ultimately my community is losing the chance to create the next generation of jobs in our city, which is desperately needed to close the ever-growing inequality.
While some will be breathing a sigh of relief as they scoop funding for investment zones, York has been left with nothing in this Budget to enable our well-planned investment opportunities to flourish. This decision fails the people of my city, who are fighting for a decent job, a decent home and a decent future. Today, it feels as if the Government have missed a chance once again, aimed below the bar, looked down instead of up and reverted to type, dishing pots of money out here and there in desperation to win the next general election, not the next generation. But the next general election is coming, and the next generation is rising. It is their jobs, their hopes, their planet, their dreams and their future. They are clear that they have had enough. Let us have that general election and let us have a Labour Budget.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I would describe this as a bit of a Stockholm syndrome Budget. After the appalling set of Budgets we have had, 13 years of the failed austerity experiment started by the Tories and Liberal Democrats, and of course the latest mini-Budget, it is tempting to think that the captives would say thank you for some of the peanuts that have been thrown—peanuts such as childcare, but even then, the measures will not come in fully for two and a half years. Hopefully, by that time this shambles will be long gone.
In Brighton, we have one of the lowest payments for childcare from the Government scheme, but we have some of the highest costs because of an historical injustice in the way that the money is calculated. This Budget will not help those childcare workers. It will not save the places at the nurseries currently up for closure by the Green council, because it will not increase the money, wages and professionalism of the sector. What is clear is that, despite a few giveaways, this Budget will still see household incomes fall by 5.7%, one of the largest falls in our constituents’ lifetimes.
Big business will of course receive huge incentives for investment, but they will not be focused on green investment. There will be no focus on co-operative businesses, as the Co-operative party has called for, and the Federation of Small Businesses says it cannot hide its disappointment and that this Budget was wide of the mark and irrelevant. A Budget that is irrelevant to small businesses is a dangerous Budget indeed. The Chancellor said he would save Labour the “bother” of reviewing business tax, but then made no mention of business rates—a regressive tax that punishes our high streets.
The help for draught beer will be welcome, but the problem in our pubs is not the tax on beer pulled from the pump; it is business rates, land values and planning laws that allow speculative breweries to sell pubs and chuck out landlords, because they get better amounts for other uses. The reality is that our leisure and night-time economies will be crippled by rising fuel bills, and, apart from the welcome leisure centre relief, they are being offered no protection whatever.
The failure to bring down energy bills will affect our constituents. That is a failure of Ofgem and of the horizontal privatisation that means it is illegal for British Gas to sell energy to its customers at the price at which it generates it. That is madness. It allows speculation and profits to win out, rather than hard-working ordinary people, for whom there is no benefit.
Of course, it is not just businesses that will suffer. As we know, the Government had to announce only last month a scheme for residential customers who are on business tariffs so that they get the £400 support. As the business tariffs will no longer be capped, all those people will have to pay an uncapped amount for their energy bills. Many of them are the poorest in our communities—they live in houses in multiple occupation and blocks of flats. In fact, some of them pay on commercial prepayment meters, but because they pay their landlord rather than the energy supplier, the welcome support for prepayment meters that is provided directly through the energy supplier will not be extended to them. That is a tragic miss of this Budget.
Another problematic area is that of investments. There are no real investments in the green sector. Germany is proposing 5.2% of its GDP for green transformation; the UK is proposing just 1.2%. America has passed the Inflation Reduction Act, and France has pledged billions for green steel. We are not even scratching the surface. Okay, there are some nice warm words on—currently unproven—nuclear reactors, which I hope will be proven. [Interruption.] Nowhere have they been proven at commercial level.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
No, I will not.
Britain should invest in the reactors and roll them out, but as yet, we have not done so. [Interruption.] No. It is the same with carbon capture. Investment is welcome, but we are yet to see it at full-scale capacity. It was Labour that said that investment should have come in 2010, but the Conservatives stopped it. They are unproven because of a Conservative failure to invest. Coming late to the party is no good for anyone.
Of course, let us be clear: only a third—[Interruption.] Conservative Members can continue making a noise if they want, but it is a complete waste of their time. Only a third of the poorest households own a car, whereas 90% of the richest households do. A freeze on the fuel escalator is good news for them, but the fact that there is no subsequent freeze on bus, rail and other forms of public transport means that the rich benefit and the poor get messed over again—[Interruption.] There is no cap on rail, and if you do not realise that, you are not really a rail traveller, are you?
Of course, this was a Budget for the top taxpayers—and the pension pots that they will now be able to save—not for normal people. It could have been so different. The upper earnings limit of the national insurance rate is, in my view, a disgrace. It is a disgrace that people earning under £50,000 pay 12% towards national insurance, but those earning over £50,000 pay only 2% on earnings above that. Not only is that a flat rate of tax, which Conservatives usually advocate for, but it is actively regressive. It harms the poorest and helps the richest.
If that one change had been made, £30 billion would have been raised according to the most conservative estimates. What could that £30 billion have paid for? I can tell the House one thing it could have paid for: social care, another area that was totally missed in this Budget. That £30 billion could have paid for all the social care costs that councils up and down this country are currently having to pay, which would have freed up our councils to invest in their communities, as they should in Brighton. It would have equated to £100 million every year in the pocket of Brighton council that could have been invested in our streets and roads. We would not need a pothole giveaway—we would have had our own money to spend—but instead, the Conservatives’ failure to sort social care means that that money is being drained.
Was there any real mention of education going forward? Yes, there were some nice giveaways for higher levels of education through the lifetime guarantee—a policy that has already been announced, might I add, not something new. However, there is no additional funding for proper further education, basic skills, maths, functional skills, GCSEs and A-levels—those things that people at the very bottom need. Yes, it is good that people who achieve higher learning will be able to draw that down, but we need learning for all people. Of course, the biggest thing in the education sector that comes into my inbox and my letterbox is special educational needs. Was there any mention in this Budget of more money going into the awful system that we have at the moment for special educational needs? Not a jot. Those children will go without the care and support that they currently have, which is a disgrace, because every day that they go without the education they need is a day of their potential being squandered.
We have also seen no movement on capital gains or unearned income. Now we have a situation where landlords using shell companies pay little or no tax compared with hard-working ordinary people. It is morally wrong that people who survive on unearned income pay less tax than those who have earned it, because this Budget comes from a Government for people who do not work hard, but who speculate, extract, and use Ponzi schemes to get money out of the market. Rather than build our country up, they take out. This is a Budget of lost opportunities—a Budget that could have changed our country. The Government have to use the term “technical recession” because everyone knows we have a household cost of living recession and a household income recession. Yes, it is a technical avoidance of recession, but the day-to-day lives of people in this country are worse.
Of course, Labour would have done better. We would have supported businesses and the economy, we would have tackled climate change, and we would have made the lives of people in our communities better. It feels that after the last Budget, things could only have got better, but rather than having some poor tribute act that is getting all the notes wrong, we need things to get better with a Labour Government. Move over and let the greats do it again. We did it in 1997, and we will do it again now.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning, during Science, Innovation and Technology questions, the Secretary of State responded to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) about the use of TikTok on Government officials’ devices. In her question, my hon. Friend stated that three weeks ago the Secretary of State said that having TikTok installed on a Government device was a personal choice. In response, the Secretary of State said that
“what I actually said was that, in terms of the general public, it is absolutely a personal choice”.
I have since checked, and in her interview with Politico, the Secretary of State stated in response to a question specifically about Government officials using TikTok that the use of the app is a “personal choice” thing. I fear that the Secretary of State may have inadvertently misled the House. As we know, the Official Report belongs to Parliament, and it is vital that our record is true and accurate. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am hoping that you will be able to advise on the next steps so that we can seek clarity on this issue, which ultimately concerns all our national security.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. Ministers are encouraged to correct any inadvertently incorrect statements made to the House as quickly as possible. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her point of order, and I am sure the Secretary of State will correct any mistakes, if any have occurred.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that next Wednesday the Government are to bring forward a statutory instrument to the House in relation to the Stormont brake. Can I ask you to investigate the legislative basis on which such an instrument can be brought forward?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order and for notice of it. While it is not within the power of the Chair to do that in relation to the tabling of legislation in this House, there will be an opportunity tomorrow in business questions for him to ask the Leader of the House directly what the future business will be and under what auspices that statutory instrument would or could be brought forward. If he is unable to do that tomorrow, he could go to the Journal Office and seek further advice.
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and road tax
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition relating to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and road tax. It was collected on behalf of my constituent, Karen Wood from Bo’ness. At its very heart is fairness and equality, as drivers in receipt of standard rate personal independence payments are unique in that they have to apply by post, unlike any other driver.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that the petitioners believe that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) is there to equally service non-disabled and disabled drivers; further that most members of the public will be unaware that drivers who qualify for a 50% discount on their road tax due to being in receipt of standard rate PIP must make an application via post; and further that the petitioners feel that all drivers should equally be able to apply for road tax via post, online or at the Post Office.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to instruct the DVLA to permit all drivers to apply for road tax by whichever method is most convenient for them.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002812]
Installation of Telecommunications Infrastructure
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing this debate this evening on telecommunications infrastructure. I know it has been a busy day with the Budget, but my constituents in Hull and residents across the country are incredibly frustrated about this important issue. Today I want to address the crux of the problem, which is that there is no legal requirement for consultation and scant procedures for the putting up of telecommunication poles and digging up of pavements to install fibre optic cables in our communities.
Members across the House would undoubtedly be frustrated and concerned if they looked outside their window one morning to discover a telegraph pole erected at the end of their garden, outside their front gate or very close to their home without knowing anything about it. They would also be incredibly annoyed to discover there was absolutely nothing they could do about it, because the current legislation makes this situation completely permissible.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Is the right hon. Lady aware that this issue affects not only the city of Hull, but the wider East Riding of Yorkshire? New infrastructure is to be welcomed, but does she agree that sensible and sensitive installation is essential?
Dame Diana Johnson
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The reason that there is not that consultation at the moment is that the law was amended by the coalition Government in 2013, so that telegraph poles being erected by communications network operators for the expansion of fibre-to-the-premises broadband do not need planning permission under the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. Under the 2003 regulations, broadband street cabinets, new telegraph poles and overhead lines can be installed in any location without the need for prior approval from local planning authorities or consultation with residents.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Lady for bringing this matter to the House as it is a huge problem across Hyndburn and Haslingden. Does she agree that it is very frustrating when constituents see Openreach, for example, digging up the roads when these telegraph poles are being installed. The question is why the wires cannot go underground, rather than wires on telegraph poles spanning across their properties.
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. It raises an important question: why can we not get this co-ordinated?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on bringing this debate forward; she brings many important issues to the House, and this is another one. In Northern Ireland we have a clear planning process that involves the councils—in my case, Ards and North Down Borough Council—and the planning department will look at these things. There is also a role for the telecommunications firms. If they put telegraph poles outside anybody’s house, that person has a right to object, if they block their view or car access; it may even block their sightlines. We have community and council involvement, therefore. Does she agree that, to address these issues to the satisfaction of our constituents, about whom she is very concerned, we need either a change in legislation or clarification from the Minister?
Dame Diana Johnson
I absolutely agree.
The changes brought in in 2013 were introduced for only five years, but they have now been extended indefinitely, allowing the situation we are all talking about today. I want to concentrate on what this means for my constituents.
Currently, residents in Hull are finding telegraph poles being erected around their properties, and sometimes on their properties, without any consultation process that allows them to raise their concerns. These poles are cheap, cumbersome and impact on the value and aesthetic worth of people’s properties. Poles are often built in close proximity to people’s driveways, in their gardens and outside their windows, often with wires dangling down from house to house in each direction.
One of my constituents has muscular dystrophy and in a few years they may, sadly, need to use a wheelchair. Returning from work one day, she discovered a telegraph pole had been erected outside her front gate, so close that if she ever does need to use a wheelchair to leave her house she will find it very difficult. Another constituent with a disability has had a pole erected in the middle of his driveway, making access to his property more difficult when getting his medication dropped off. An elderly constituent who has lived in their house for 51 years has contacted me, distressed, explaining that they do not want a neighbourhood overrun with telegraph poles. These people do not want to stand in the way of progress or stop people finding broadband that works for them; they just want a say in the place they call home.
It is not just residents who are affected, of course. A business in my community has had a telegraph pole placed on the corner of its commercial property, stopping articulated lorries gaining access to its warehouse, restricting its operations. Understandably, it complained and tried to have the pole moved. However, it was told by the company concerned, Connexin, that it was meeting all its legal requirements and nothing could be done. This is a 20,000 square foot business with a very large loading bay; it is not beyond the wit of man to facilitate an open discussion that would find an adequate position for these telegraph poles, but the company has no legislative obligation to consult so it is not doing so. Instead, it has fallen to my constituent to now have deliveries from around the world brought in on smaller vehicles at an extra cost. The business has been there for 11 years, and Connexin can force the business to change its operations without any consideration completely legally. That is unacceptable.
With no consultation with residents or the local planning authority, there is no consideration of the impact these poles can have on the daily lives of homeowners and the community.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I fully understand what the right hon. Lady is saying, and I think we all have experience of this. In Scotland, the situation is slightly different in that there is a regulation 5, which we would think would give local councils the opportunity to say, “No, you cannot do this.” Regulation 5 can apply to conservation areas, grade 1 or category A listed buildings and ancient monuments, but at the end of the day the council makes recommendations to Openreach which it does not need to comply with. Everybody wants ultra-fast, superfast broadband, but they are not consulted and no information is given to them, and they come home at night to find somebody has put a telegraph pole outside their house.
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely. Obviously, this is happening not just in my constituency, but up and down the land.
There is no requirement for companies to consider alternatives to poles, such as under-street cabling, which the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) referred to, so there is no reason for them to engage with the additional cost or effort. They can simply do as they wish.
Sara Britcliffe
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way again. A key point is that not all the altnet networks are bad—there are a few that are making it very difficult for residents. Our problem is that, when those few span our constituencies, there is no regulation for us to fall back on when we contact Ministers and this can just happen. The planning authorities want to do something when they see that the positions are inadequate, but there is no regulation for us to do anything about it.
Dame Diana Johnson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I will come on to what I think should happen in terms of regulation.
I will talk about telecommunications in Hull, because we are unique and different from the rest of the UK. The Minister may be aware that, historically, we have had only one provider of telephone services and broadband. Since 2007, that company has been known as KCOM, previously Kingston Communications, with the white telephone boxes that we are famous for. For many years, my constituents contacted me because they were concerned that having a monopoly in the city made broadband more expensive compared with having a range of providers. We know how important choice and competition are, even when they are balanced against loyalty to a local company with a long history and lots of local jobs.
Understandably, people in Hull want to welcome new broadband companies. The Government know that, which is why Openreach and BT infrastructure in the rest of the UK has been extended to other service providers in recent years. According to new broadband providers in Hull, however, KCOM has put up barriers that prevent the sharing of the existing network infrastructure with other companies. I recently met Ofcom, which told me that it could not examine the situation with KCOM or even assess whether it was correct unless a formal complaint was received. If access to KCOM’s infrastructure is still a problem for new companies, and Ofcom has next-to-no power to proactively investigate that, we need to look at the regulator’s powers.
At the moment, it appears that there may be problems in getting access to KCOM’s communication network, so individual companies are choosing to put up their own telegraph poles. That means that these outdated infrastructure eyesores seem to be popping up on every street corner, which is upsetting residents who have no power to object or even advise and compromise on their placement. That is happening across Hull, from Kingswood to Endike Lane and Inglemire Lane, which leads to the constituency of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). He represents Cottingham and has said that he also supports local people being consulted.
In Hull North alone, I have heard from multiple constituents on the Queensway, Tollymore Park, Frensham Close, Bradgate Park, Highgrove Way, Sleightholme Close, Gatwick Garth, Digby Garth, Honley Wood Close, Downhill Drive, Heatherwood Court, Callow Hill Drive, Waterdale, Marydene Drive, Catherine McAuley Close, Ella Street and the Avenues. All have had their lives disrupted and disturbed by what is happening. The lack of power and influence over what happens to their own properties and neighbourhoods is unacceptable.
A mother in my constituency has been told—not asked—that a pole will be erected at the end of her driveway. She describes jumping every time the doorbell detects movement and wondering if people have come to
“ruin our driveway and absolutely terrify my young children”,
who say to her,
“this is our home, not theirs”.
Another constituent says:
“For many years we have wanted the choice of internet provider, but never thought that would be at the expense of telegraph poles littering our neighbourhoods with no sensitivity to placement or consultation with residents”,
but they can do absolutely nothing about it. Even residents who have no intention of using the service that will be introduced by the new infrastructure can do nothing about it.
In Birnam Court in my constituency, every single resident has written to oppose the installation of the telegraph poles and cables, but still they are powerless to stop it. As one Hull resident put it:
“Installers are riding roughshod over residents’ wishes and there is no way to protest.”
So people inevitably complain, but they are told by the company that it has not broken its legal obligations, and that is the end of it. So they complain to Ofcom, and they are told that there is nothing Ofcom can do.
Connexin, the company erecting the telegraph poles that are aggravating most of my constituents, set up in the area a few years ago, stating:
“The people of Hull and the East Riding deserve better from their broadband supplier and every aspect of our new network has been designed with customer experience in mind.”
Parliamentary language is very important, so I will just politely say that that is utter tosh. Connexin is notoriously difficult to get a response from, despite me sending it numerous constituents’ complaints, and it has failed to deal with any of them properly. I finally heard from its offices yesterday, ahead of this debate, to offer to meet me to try and resolve the problem—it is very funny what raising an issue in the House of Commons can do to focus the minds of local companies. This avoidance strategy is completely unacceptable, and I urge anyone who has been affected by the erection of Connexin’s poles to write directly to its chief executive officer, Furqan Alamgir, with their complaints. His email is fa@connexin.co.uk.
Under the Government’s own legislation, the only legal requirement on these network operators is that they notify the local planning authority at least 28 days in advance, and then put up a sign to say that the telegraph pole is coming. That is it. The code of practice accompanying this free-for-all states that operators should initially offer to discuss the application of their proposed network deployment programme with relevant planning authorities, but the local planning authority has no power to stop their plans anyway. Customers and residents are not even considered worth mentioning in the code of practice.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very conscious of the time, and I have got a few more things to say.
I should raise at this point that it is, again, quite opaque whether network operators are actually engaging properly with local authorities about their plans, as the code of practice meekly suggests. If Hull City Council has concerns or believes that the code of practice is not being followed, it can, I understand, complain directly to Ofcom, and then and only then will Ofcom investigate. There is not much teeth to the Government’s guidelines or the code of practice anyway, so it is unlikely that anything would change.
My ask of the Government is simple: repeal the 2013 amendment and make it a statutory requirement for communications network operators to apply for permission to the local planning authority on any proposed installation of telegraph poles, with a requirement for consultation with affected residents before any permissions are issued.
Last week I presented my planning permission for telecommunications telegraph pole installation petition to this House, which had a specific request for the Government to make it a statutory requirement, as I have just set out. I would also like to draw the Minister’s attention to my private Member’s Bill, which would also reform the law.
All the residents who contact me recognise that a modern telecoms infrastructure is needed for mobiles and fast broadband, especially if they want a choice of service providers. They are not being unreasonable or obstructive; all they are asking for is due consideration and common-sense solutions to the placing of new infrastructure.
I just want to put on record my thanks to the local Labour councillors who have been working with me, as they, too, have been inundated with complaints: Councillor Gary Wareing, Councillor Rosie Nicola, Councillor Steve Wilson, Councillor Abby Singh and Councillor Marjorie Brabazon. Although they are local councillors in Hull North, the issue, as the Minister will have heard tonight, goes right across the country. It has been raised from Hull to Bolton to Lincoln to Ipswich and beyond, and to Northern Ireland and to Scotland. My own petition has had hundreds of signatures, and I know that many other Members have similar petitions active at the moment too.
What these telecom firms often lack is local knowledge and some common sense. Local people, through a requirement for consultation, can provide that common sense for these companies free of charge. In the end, it will never be good business sense for these companies to annoy and aggravate local people and businesses that we assume they would welcome as potential customers. But this place clearly has a role in rectifying the mistakes of 2013 and in setting out some ground rules that require these companies to behave as they should, not just as they are allowed to get away with at the moment, and I hope the Minister will agree.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for securing this important debate, and for raising her residents’ concerns so articulately and with such passion. I understand her concerns about the installation of digital infrastructure in her constituency.
As the right hon. Lady will be aware, the Government have big digital ambitions for the people we represent, because we think great connectivity is absolutely fundamental to people’s life chances and we do not want to oversee a digital divide. However, we are also extremely mindful that communities have concerns about new infrastructure. We want to ensure that those concerns are heard and considered, and that we get the balance right. I entirely appreciate the sentiment behind the proposals in her private Member’s Bill and in her petition, but I am not entirely convinced that they are the right way forward. We are trying to reduce some of the bureaucracy and difficulties that have hampered roll-out and given us difficulties in the quality of our digital infrastructure up until now.
As I mentioned, reliable fast digital connectivity is vital for the prosperity of this country, local businesses and families. We want to ensure that consumers and businesses throughout the UK can get the services they need. I accept that the right hon. Lady acknowledged that pressing need and said that her constituents do as well. We believe that great digital infrastructure will enable our constituents to access healthcare, stay in touch with friends and relatives, and educate their children. It will help our businesses to innovate and stay globally competitive.
I will set out the progress made due to the reforms cited by the right hon. Lady. In 2018, only 6% of UK premises had access to gigabit-capable broadband. I am very proud to say that that figure has now increased to 74%, demonstrating how our actions have significantly improved broadband coverage. Poor broadband coverage during the pandemic would have meant considerably more disruption and difficulty for our economy, and for how our society had to run during that extremely difficult period. I am therefore very proud of that achievement and thank everybody who contributed to it. However, as the House knows, our ambition is for that figure to be above 85% by 2025, with gigabit broadband available nationwide by 2030. I should also say that I am inundated with requests from Members across the UK for the roll-out to go faster and further, filling in not spots and so on.
If that ambitious target is to be achieved, infrastructure deployment needs to continue at pace. We know it is crucial that the legislative framework supports the companies who are working hard to help achieve that target. At the same time, I certainly understand the concerns of communities when new poles are installed. The legislation rightly recognises the impact of network deployment on communities and the environment. Most telecoms infrastructure, including poles and new masts, benefits from permitted development rights, as the right hon. Lady acknowledged. They allow certain types of development to go ahead without the need for a specific planning application. However, that is subject to some specific exclusions. Permitted development rights are also applicable to other forms of infrastructure development, such as transport and utilities. At a time when connectivity plays an increasingly vital role in our lives, it would be wrong for the planning regime for telecoms to be stricter than it is for other infrastructure. That will only create barriers to deployment.
Ronnie Cowan
In my constituency, when operators put up a new pole they put a wee plaque on it that says, “If you have an objection, phone this number.” They clearly know they are upsetting local communities in the first place. Would it not be better for them to engage with the local community before erecting the poles?
Julia Lopez
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There are ways operators can do that. Some operators are much more mindful of that and the need for community consent. Others are not acting according to some of the codes of practice installed to try to help deal with the kinds of issues he raises.
Sara Britcliffe
The Minister has come to the crux of the argument. Some providers are doing that, but others are not and that is a problem. There is nothing to say that providers have to engage with a local community before they do it. Yes, there are some very good providers who will do it, but I have experienced others that do not.
Jim Shannon
In Northern Ireland we welcome the broadband roll-out, which is going exceptionally well due to financial support from the Government. To be helpful and constructive, one of the things that we have done back home, which may help the hon. Lady and others to find a way forward, is that in almost every case the construction firms that are putting in the broadband have put the telecommunications underground, thereby doing away with the visual impact. That is a solution that works across my constituency, where broadband roll-out is quite significant.
Julia Lopez
The hon. Gentleman is right to acknowledge just how much progress has been made in Northern Ireland, where there is some of the best connectivity in the United Kingdom. I am proud that we have been able to make that investment, which is making a massive difference to his constituents. I will come to some of the points raised in interventions, which I hope will help hon. Members.
The electronic communications code provides the framework for operators to install infrastructure. Together with accompanying regulations, it sets out the conditions of how infrastructure must be installed in practice. The regulations require operators to share apparatus if possible and to install only the apparatus that they need. Although some of the issues are not entirely unique to Kingston upon Hull, they are particularly problematic there because of the monopolistic position of KCOM that the right hon. Lady raised. There is also a requirement to install lines underground, as has been raised, unless certain conditions apply.
The regulations set out how operators should engage with local planning authorities. They must notify them at least 28 days before installing a pole, to give them time to consider imposing any additional conditions to the proposed installation. They should engage with communities and other interested parties to engage with communities and other interested parties at that stage.
The final legal provision I would like to highlight is that the electronic communication code sets out who can object to and seek the removal of apparatus, and the circumstances in which they can do that. As well as the legal provisions, I draw the right hon. Lady’s attention to the cabinet siting and pole siting code of practice, which was agreed following the changes to legislation that gave greater permitted development rights and best practice for those installations. It encourages operators to site apparatus responsibly and engage proactively with local authorities and communities. I encourage all operators to adhere to that code of practice.
We have big digital ambitions, but we are making sure that we also support local communities along the way. Last year we made it easier for fixed line operators to share the use of existing poles—again, I think that there are some specific issues with KCOM—and underground ducts via provisions in the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. That should help to reduce the need for new infrastructure, including poles, in future. We will carefully monitor the impact of the Act’s provisions as they start to have a real-world effect, as it gained Royal Assent only in December 2022 so it is still fairly early days.
My officials talk to Ofcom regularly about the electronic communications code and other telecoms issues. We are looking closely at how to ensure that all operators are aware of and adhering to their responsibilities under the code. We are also looking at whether steps are needed to educate local authorities on their role in the process, including the ability to escalate issues to Ofcom when needed. I note what the right hon. Lady said about her meeting with Ofcom. I will look into some of the issues that she raised about its stated ability to get further involved.
In addition to that engagement with Ofcom, officials in my Department have held meetings with representatives from KCOM and Connexin, to discuss some of the concerns raised with us about deployment in Hull. In addition, they have met with the local council to understand the issue from its perspective. We cannot interfere with individual commercial arrangements, but I have highlighted the obligations of all operators when deploying poles. Ofcom also regularly reviews the market, and last conducted a review into the Hull telecoms market in October 2021. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for highlighting her concerns. I will ensure that they are relayed to Ofcom. I am pleased to have this chance to update her on the measures already in place, but there may be more that should be done in this area.
Let me turn to the right hon. Lady’s specific proposal to introduce a further layer of bureaucracy into the planning process. We are concerned that that would delay the roll-out of much better infrastructure and could deprive communities and businesses of the connectivity that they need. It will also increase deployment costs, which makes it not cost-effective for operators to deploy in some areas. As I mentioned, that risks creating a digital divide, which we are keen to avoid.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am not sure about the suggestion that either we get this rolled out, or we don’t because people have to be consulted. There could be a short period of consultation and engagement with local communities, but that would not mean that there would not be a roll-out of broadband, which we all want to see. This is not an either-or situation; we can both consult and see broadband rolled out.
Julia Lopez
I am not sure that is the case. We have consulted very closely, trying to make deployment easier, faster and more straightforward. I have concerns that adding an additional layer to the process would slow deployment. We have given the issue much consideration, particularly during the passage of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. I hope that legislation will encourage much more sharing of the infrastructure, so we do not have to see more Bills. Sharing infrastructure is a particular issue in Hull and I am happy to look into that in greater detail.
We believe that the current framework makes adequate provision for planning considerations, while allowing prospective deployment to happen at pace, promoting competition, increasing consumer choice and, crucially, helping to keep prices low.
I thank the right hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate and raising awareness of digital connectivity. I can assure her and the House that it is a Government priority, but I will also take away some of the legitimate concerns raised about specific operators during the debate. I will take up that conversation with Ofcom and see whether further work is needed in that regard.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Park Homes Energy Support
Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill
Wednesday 15th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 View all Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
The Chair
I welcome Committee members to this line-by-line consideration of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Aberconwy. The order of batting is on the selection list in front of you. For clarity, I intend to call the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Midlothian as one group and then move on to the stand part consideration of the clauses, which will be rather like a Second Reading debate.
Clause 1
Veterans advisory and pensions committees
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) The regulations must provide for the membership of committees to include at least one representative of a UK veterans’ association.”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations may give the committees functions relating to—
(a) monitoring and holding to account Veterans UK in the discharge of its functions; and
(b) oversight and review of decisions made by Veterans UK.”.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
“(4A) The regulations must specify that the committees’ functions apply to British Armed Forces veterans who are resident overseas.”.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, after “education” insert “social care, employment, immigration”.
Owen Thompson
I do not intend to detain Members overly long. In moving the amendments, I am perhaps chancing my arm. They are not in any way meant to take anything away from the Bill, which is a very good Bill. I commend the hon. Member for Aberconwy for the work he has done to get it to this stage, and I look forward to its progressing further, hopefully with the support of all Members. However, I could not let such an opportunity pass without once again making efforts to try to address some of the issues that have arisen with Veterans UK over several years. For the record, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am a vice convener of the all-party parliamentary group for veterans, and we have undertaken a fair bit of work looking at the experiences of veterans with Veterans UK.
My intention is not to detract from the Bill, which does a lot of very good things and moves very much in the right direction. It raises awareness of vital services that are available to veterans, but there is an opportunity to do just that bit more.
There is an opportunity here for us to reshape the relationship between veterans advisory and pensions committees—VAPCs—and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, giving that office the formal task, on a statutory footing, of holding Veterans UK to account, and providing a kind of ombudsman service. That is the purpose of amendment 1. At the moment—we have heard this from a number of Members in debates—Veterans UK, to a large extent, is judge and jury when it comes to deciding outcomes. The Bill could provide a potential mechanism for a third party to oversee those processes. I do not think that that asks too much in addition from the Bill.
Amendment 2 seeks to make provision about the membership of VAPCs. To my mind, it is a relatively straightforward proposal. Those who are part of veterans associations know our veterans better than anyone, so formally ensuring their inclusion in VAPCs is a sensible proposal. They may well be on those committees anyway, but let us just make sure that they form part of them.
On amendment 4, I have one particular question for the Minister. It was unclear from my reading of the Bill whether it covers any of our veterans who now live overseas. Amendment 4 seeks to make it absolutely clear that it does, because I do not feel that that clarity is there at the moment. I may have missed it—if I have, I welcome that. However, let us just be clear and make sure that all veterans can access the support that is available.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Some clarity on both the territorial extent of the Bill and veterans living overseas would be helpful, including the Bill’s application to veterans living in overseas territories and Crown dependencies, as they sometimes sit in a different category from veterans living overseas. Does the hon. Member agree?
Owen Thompson
I absolutely agree. It is simply a matter of clarity. I do not think there is any intention to exclude anyone here, and I am not trying to suggest that there is. We need some clarity around that, to be sure.
Finally, on amendment 3, the Bill refers to covenant matters in relation to housing, education and health, but those are not the only things our veterans need help and support with. I hope that the measure might be expanded to include social care, employment, immigration and that sort of thing. I do not think it would be unnecessarily complicated to add those to the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the hon. Member for Aberconwy and the Minister on the proposals.
I am not here to detain anyone for longer than is necessary, and this is a good opportunity for us to continue the work that is clearly under way better to support our veterans. After all, they have given so much to support the nations of these isles, so it is not too much to ask that we do everything we can to support them, particularly when they need it most.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian, whose work in this place on behalf of veterans I acknowledge. I recognise the points the hon. Gentleman has made, which came up frequently in discussions I have had about the Bill. They represent legitimate concerns.
The amendments would widen the scope of the committees in relation to their interaction with Veterans UK, the VAPC membership and territorial extent, and, effectively, add social care, employment and immigration to the definition of the armed forces covenant. The intention of my Bill is to recognise how committees have operated in practice in recent years and enable them to carry out additional functions in relation to other aspects of the services provided to veterans and their families by the Ministry of Defence. However, those are subtle but important distinctions.
Amendment 2 would prescribe that the regulations that establish the VAPCs provide that there must be at least one committee member who is a representative of a UK veterans association. There is no question about the importance of the relationship between VAPCs and the UK veterans associations at local, regional and national levels. However, those committee members will be appointed by the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families following an open and fair competition that involves the civil service appointment process. Representatives of UK veterans associations are therefore welcome to apply for membership of the committees through that process.
The wording of clause 1 allows flexibility in how the regulations are framed, including in relation to the composition of committee memberships, precisely because different compositions might be appropriate across the different regional committees. The amendment is well intentioned, but it would start to encroach on how the committees are constituted, which would prevent the very flexibility that the Bill aims to afford, and which is necessary for VAPCs to operate differently across different regions.
Amendment 1 would give VAPCs functions in relation to holding the Ministry of Defence’s Veterans UK service to account in the discharge of its functions, and give oversight and review of decisions made by Veterans UK. Again, I recognise those points from comments made by Members, veterans groups and veterans themselves in the weeks and months leading up to these debates, and the hon. Member for Midlothian is right to raise them. However, in addressing the amendment, it is useful to consider the recent all-party parliamentary group on veterans survey. Many issues raised by the veterans who responded related specifically to the armed forces compensation scheme, which is subject to quinquennial review. That review is due to report fully in the spring.
We must also look to the future. I am mindful of the fact that the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs have commissioned a review of Government welfare provision for veterans, which includes services provided by the Ministry of Defence under the banner of Veterans UK. VAPCs will be within scope of that wider Government veterans review, which will be led by a senior civil servant, with the independent veterans’ adviser and other key stakeholders providing advice. The review will last approximately three months. A copy of the review and the Government’s response will be placed in the Library of the House.
The Bill will give the Secretary of State the powers to make changes that he—or she, if it is she by then—considers necessary based on recommendations deriving from those reviews and surveys. Without knowing the outcome of those reviews or any forthcoming recommendations they might make, it is difficult to see how the amendment, which would provide VAPCs with a function to review Veterans UK, could operate in practice.
Amendment 4 prescribes that regulations must specify that the committees’ functions apply to British armed forces veterans who are resident overseas. That point was, again, well made by the hon. Member for Midlothian and echoed by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. However, the additional functions that my Bill gives to VAPCs relate to MOD services and armed forces covenant matters relating to veterans and their families. Therefore, the Bill specifically relates to services provided by the MOD to veterans and their families within the UK.
The Armed Forces Act 2021, which introduced the armed forces covenant duty, sets out that the focus of covenant legislation is access to UK-based public services and is therefore not applicable to those living overseas. The legislation refers to those
“ordinarily resident in the UK”.
Therefore, armed forces covenant matters, as defined in this Bill, must apply only within the UK.
Veterans who live overseas and are having issues with accessing public services in the countries they are resident in will find that those are best raised with the relevant UK embassy or high commission, which can advocate locally on behalf of the veteran. Again, that may be something worth raising with the Minister on another occasion.
Amendment 3 changes the definition of “armed forces covenant matters” to include issues relating to social care, employment and immigration. The definition of “armed forces covenant matters” in this Bill derives from the Armed Forces Act 2006 provisions on the armed forces covenant. When the Armed Forces Act 2021, which introduced the covenant duty, passed through the other place last year, it defined the duty as focusing on the three core functions of healthcare, education and housing. That reflects those already in statute, which are the most commonly raised areas and are where variation of service delivery across localities can inadvertently disadvantage the armed forces community, including the veterans and their families who are the focus of this Bill.
Again, the hon. Member for Midlothian has made a point worth raising. However. areas of concern relating to the armed forces covenant can be addressed as and when they arise, through the powers introduced in the Armed Forces Act 2021, which allow the Government to widen the scope of the covenant duty, subject to consultation or where there is evidence and support to suggest it would be beneficial, through secondary legislation. That is the process by which any amendments to the armed forces covenant duty might be made—not through this Bill.
The hon. Member may be aware that the Government have committed to reviewing the operation of the covenant duty during 2023. The review will encompass the operation of the new duty across the UK and will consider whether it would be beneficial to exercise any of the powers conferred by the 2021 Act to add to its scope. That will include specific consideration of whether central Government and the devolved Administrations could usefully be added. The Government will report on that review as part of their covenant annual report in 2023.
I hope that, following those assurances, the hon. Member for Midlothian will agree not to press his amendments.
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy for his remarks, and the hon. Member for Midlothian for his amendments, which are thoughtful. I rise, really, just to support my hon. Friend’s response to those amendments, and I urge the Committee to politely reject them. My hon. Friend has laid out the reasons for that elegantly.
Regarding amendment 2, I must say that I would prefer to have the flexibility in appointing Members of VAPCs. During my time as a Minister, I have seen how that process works. It is robust and credible, and, looking at the people who populate VAPCs—all 12 of them—it seems to me that the veteran community is heavily represented. They are the sort of people who are likely to be drawn to that job, so I think, perhaps, the practicality of it is that the voice of veterans is already loud and clear. Indeed, I would say that the value of VAPCs is very much that they are rooted in the veteran community.
On amendment 1, the mechanism cited is certainly worthy of consideration, but, again, I urge the Committee to resist the function the amendment proposes. This is quite a robust piece of legislation, which has its origin in amendments tabled in the Lords in response to the Armed Forces Act 2021. For that I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Lancaster, whose amendments at that juncture were rejected by the Government on the promise that we would facilitate a Bill of this sort. Many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Midlothian were addressed at that time, so I would resist amendments 1 and 2.
Amendment 4 states:
“The regulations must specify that the committees’ functions apply to British Armed Forces veterans who are resident overseas.”
I understand it and I get it, but the 2021 Act talks about people who are
“ordinarily resident in the UK”,
and for rather boring technical reasons it would be very difficult indeed to extend that to veterans who live overseas. I am sorry that that is slightly unsatisfactory, but I am confident that VAPCs will cover much of the ground and material that would be germane to people serving overseas.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I see the logic of the Minister’s argument, but can he clarify the pensions issue? Can the many veterans who retire to live abroad still raise issues with the pensions advisory board?
Dr Murrison
That is an interesting point. Like me, the right hon. Gentleman will get correspondence all the time from people who live overseas. I do not know what his practice is, but mine is to engage with their inquiries and where it is clear that people have a strong connection with my area or have lived there for a reasonable period, I take those up on their behalf. I will not lay down here that VAPCs should do so, but it is more than likely that those issues would be covered in any event. I hope that is a comfort to the right hon. Gentleman.
I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian for tabling the amendments and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy for addressing them. I hope the hon. Member for Midlothian is content.
Owen Thompson
I will not press any amendments to a vote today, but it was important to flag the issues. If we cannot amend this Bill, can we find a mechanism to facilitate some of the things that we were trying to achieve here? It is not about putting in place a wrecking mechanism; this is all about putting in extra support. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robin Millar
I am grateful for the support from you, Mr Gray, and all members of the Committee, as well as from Members who could not be here, but who supported the Bill on Second Reading. It has enjoyed cross-party support, and support from Members of both Houses.
The veterans advisory and pensions committees have been a less well-known part of Government support for veterans for almost a century. Formerly known as the war pensions committees, they advise and liaise with veterans, their families and relevant organisations on their needs, issues and concerns. There are 12 VAPCs across the UK, and they are distinctive, identifiable and independent points of reference for veterans. They are staffed by volunteers. It has been a real privilege for me to meet current and former volunteers while preparing this Bill.
This reform has the potential to improve life for veterans. First, the VAPCs lack a clearly defined remit. As a result, relationships with stakeholders can be frustrated. Secondly, the monitoring of and advising on the war pensions and armed forces compensation schemes is an important but limited function. There is a much broader range of support now available to veterans, and a real opportunity to make a difference by linking and co-ordinating Ministry of Defence services for individuals. Broadening the role of the VAPCs enables the committees to better identify gaps in provision and co-ordinate MOD services for veterans.
Thirdly, the Bill will widen the cohort of veterans and families who are able to access support from the VAPCs. Currently, only those in receipt of war pensions and help from the armed forces compensation scheme are guaranteed help from VAPCs. That hinders the committees’ ability to provide the broad range of social support that families and ex-service people often need. It also limits their ability to communicate with the wider service community, and so to advocate for veterans and provide representative feedback. Technically, the Bill will achieve that in three ways.
Luke Pollard
I welcome the Bill that the hon. Member for Aberconwy is seeking to introduce; it seems perfectly sensible. However, I have a few questions for the Minister.
In the very useful impact assessment to the Bill, section D on risks assumptions and limitations states that the MOD
“has yet to complete its own review of the VPACs.”
It says that there is a risk that future legislation will be required if that review is not completed before this legislation is taken forward. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether the review has been completed, so that we can be sure that we are not risking a requirement for additional legislation. On a point about language, section D also states:
“There is a risk that the widened cohort of veterans in scope will increase the number of personnel receiving support from the VAPCs under option 3”,
which was the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberconwy. I think that is not so much a risk resulting from the legislation as its intention, so that is interesting language to use.
May I ask the Minister about the terms of reference for VAPCs? From various explanatory notes, it seems that the last terms of reference were issued by the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, yet the explanatory notes to the Bill suggest that the Ministry of Defence will now issue them. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether it is the OVA or the Ministry of Defence issuing the terms of reference from now on.
Finally, I had a look on the VAPC website to see what is going on, and I would like to praise all the volunteers for their work. There are many minutes on the website, and the number of issues considered in them shows that there are some incredible volunteers working their socks off, but I encourage the Minister to ask his officials to update the website a wee bit. Some regions, such as Yorkshire and Humber, seem incredibly active and are very efficient at getting their minutes posted on the website. Other VAPC regions are, I am sure, meeting and writing minutes, but those minutes do not seem to be as prominent on the VAPC website.
Another question is how people can contact members of VAPC regional committees. There are frequent lists of names of those whom the Secretary of State has appointed to the VAPCs, but there is not any obvious way for people to contact them. If the intention is not for people to contact the regional chair, but to make contact via a different method, it would be helpful to say what that method is when listing the members of a committee that people are being encouraged to contact. Other than that, this looks like a sensible piece of legislation.
Dr Murrison
This Bill is intended to regularise what has become custom and practice. There is nothing particularly new here, but the Bill does give VAPCs, which we have decided are worthwhile, a statutory basis. I hope the Bill will be seen in that light.
Under this legislation, VAPCs would have a statutory remit to do more than engage locally with recipients of war pensions or the armed forces compensation scheme. They will cover a broader range of issues; they may, for example, gauge veterans’ views on the support they receive from the Veterans Welfare Service, and raising awareness of the armed forces covenant. I hope the Committee will accept that the Government’s intent, through the legislation and the various reviews under way, is to ensure that the interests of veterans are furthered. That Government are sensitive to their concerns about how they are dealt with under the armed forces covenant.
The VAPCs will provide the Ministry of Defence and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs with a source of independent advice about how the MOD should support veterans and their families. Families are very important in this. One of the changes that the legislation will certainly bring is a focus not just on war pensioners and recipients of benefits under the armed forces compensation scheme but families and the wider defence community. I should highlight that the Bill also allows for recommendations to be adopted from the ongoing independent review of the VAPCs under the Cabinet Office public bodies reform programme, which is due to report at the end of this month, and from the recently announced independent review of the role and scope of the Government’s welfare provision for veterans, including by the MOD under the Veterans UK banner.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which reflected the perfectly understandable concern that there is a lot going on at the moment, and that there is a risk of overlap. I hope that the timeline that I have given, and the fact that this is enabling legislation—further regulations would have to be made as statutory instruments—mean that, in reality, the whole thing is pretty much covered off. Of course, rather than running these things in parallel, we could have run them in series, but I am persuaded that we need to crack on with this issue, and I do not necessarily want one to follow the other.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and to Mr Gray for allowing an intervention—I am conscious of falling foul of the tube strike this morning. Having chaired the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I have taken a huge interest in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, and I commend him on bringing it forward, because it covers the things that we did not quite get to in that Committee. Does the Minister agree that what is exciting about the Bill is not the statutory change itself, but the opportunities now available to the VAPCs? The Bill is about giving them some teeth, and perhaps also holding Veterans UK to account.
Dr Murrison
Yes, and that was the subject of one of the amendments that we discussed earlier. The Bill will give the committees teeth—that is the intent—so it will make the veterans’ voice louder in this domain.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport rightly made the point about terms of reference. VAPCs will sit within the Ministry of Defence’s remit, so the terms of reference will rest with the MOD rather than the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. He also made a point about websites, which had not struck me, but I am sure that VAPCs will have heard what he said. I do not want to mandate how they do their business, and there is a balance to be struck between their independence and what the MOD would like. I have a natural instinct towards regularising stuff, but in this instance it is important to give them a little wriggle room to do their comms piece as they see fit. The hon. Member’s point is well made, and I hope that those who are perhaps doing less well will have heard what he said.
Mr Gray, you will be delighted to hear that I have taken a red pen to a lot of my speech, because having sensed that the Committee is broadly content with the Bill, I do not see any point in dragging out the Committee, but I want to make a quick comment about the devolved Administrations. The committees will work closely, as they do now, with the devolved Administrations, and as they become aware of issues, they can raise them with Ministers. Ministers can then direct their officials, as they do now, to work with their devolved counterparts on the issues and find a workable solution. My general experience of working with the devolved Administrations in the area for which I am responsible has been positive.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy for his hard work on the Bill, for which I am extremely grateful, and the enthusiasm with which he has approached the task. The Bill has our wholehearted support, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Before I put the final Question, I note, with great personal satisfaction, that some two thirds of the members of the Committee are graduates of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which shows the work of the scheme.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No.2) Bill
Wednesday 15th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023 View all Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“(2) In section 3(1)(a), for “22”, substitute “16”.
(3) In section 5(1A)(a), for “22”, substitute “16”.”
This amendment would reduce the age at which automatic enrolment begins to apply from 22 to 16.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out “3(1A), 5(1C),”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out “3(1A), 5(1C) or”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out “3(1A), 5(1C) or”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
David Linden
It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North on getting his Bill through Second Reading, and I certainly commit my party to supporting the principles of what he is seeking to achieve.
Automatic enrolment of pensions is not an issue on which I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is probably the only issue on which he and I agree these days—that says more about our political differences than anything else. In a similar vein, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), who initially introduced the Bill before he moved on to the dizzy heights of ministerial office at the Department for Transport.
It would be fair to say that the finer details of pensions policy do not generally get people’s excitement levels rising, although Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, the hon. Member for Reading East and I find this stuff quite fascinating and exciting, so we rub along quite nicely. Although there is not excitement around pensions policy, there is scope for more political consensus. I believe that is true of automatic enrolment, which has generally been a success for our society. My only real criticism of AE is that there has not been a big enough attempt to include low earners and those of all ages. The Bill certainly makes great strides towards tackling that inequity, and it should help with some of the structural problems, such as the gender pensions gap, which does not get as much political attention as the gender pay gap.
I have no great desire to detain the Committee for any length of time today. I appreciate that the action is very much elsewhere—of course, I am referring to the local housing allowance debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon. The Minister knows and, I believe, understands my long-standing interest in extending automatic enrolment to everyone over the age of 16, not 22 or even 18, and for it to kick in from the first pound earned. The latter is particularly important for women, especially those who work part time and have not previously hit the threshold.
These are probing amendments. I am sure the Committee will be glad to know that I do not intend to press them to a vote. If Members want to be elsewhere, fear not; I will not press them to a Division. Amendments 1 to 4 seek to amend clause 1 to ensure automatic enrolment in a pension kicks in at the earliest stage—the age at which tax kicks in. They would put on the face of the Bill that automatic enrolment begins to apply from the age of 16, not 18, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North proposes. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 are merely technical amendments and are consequential in nature, so I will focus on the thinking behind amendment 1.
We all recognise that there are changes to the labour market, and that people’s employment journeys are changing. Many of us left the Chamber during the Chancellor’s speech when he was just getting on to that section of the Budget. He recognises that there are changes to the labour market. Likewise, the Work and Pensions Committee, on which I sit, is currently undertaking an inquiry into the plan for jobs and is trying to better understand some of the changes behind working practices and economic inactivity.
None of us—not even the Chancellor—has a silver bullet suggestion for how we fix the issues relating to under-25s and over-55s not participating in the labour market at the level they were before the pandemic. Following our recent cross-party trip to the USA, I know that I and others on that Committee certainly see apprenticeships as just one example of how we can offer a different path into the labour market.
That brings me very much to my own experience. When exam results are sent out, we politicians rightly talk about there being no wrong path for people’s employment journeys. Some, after school, move straight into further and higher education. Increasingly—this is my personal belief—they do so sometimes disproportionately for our economy. I use this analogy to explain it to folk: if I have a leaking roof or a leaking pipe, I do not want a doctor or a lawyer—I want a plumber. Perhaps, as an economy, we need to pivot a bit more towards some of the trades.
For others, and I am an example, the path on leaving school is a vocational qualification at first, such as an apprenticeship. It is with that in mind that I have tabled the amendments. We know from House of Commons Library research that, at any one time in the UK, approximately 572,000 people are undertaking an apprenticeship, sometimes for up to four years with the same employer, and from age 16. The Bill before us would exclude those apprentices from inclusion in automatic enrolment. I do not know why that is, especially when they are likely to have four years of contributions.
In responding to these probing amendments, will the Minister outline why the Government’s preference is for age 18 and not 16? Have they undertaken a specific impact assessment to age 16? If so, will they publish it? I know that the Government have published an impact assessment for age 18. It came through within the last hour, and I have looked at it, but it seems to extend only to age 18, not 16.
We all agree that automatic enrolment has been a success and extending it further to younger cohorts is clearly a good thing. On that, we will not disagree, but I do not understand why the proposal is to stop at age 18, not extending it all the way to 16, bringing it in line with the point when income tax kicks in, and including all workers. I very much look forward to the Minister outlining the Government’s rationale, and explaining why they would have any difficulty accepting amendment 1 to what is an otherwise excellent Bill.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to you and to fellow Committee members for joining me today to scrutinise this important legislation, especially on Budget day.
The Bill before us contains two clauses. I am grateful to hon. Members for their support for the expansion of automatic enrolment into workplace pensions, a long-standing public policy objective that enjoys widespread support in this House and the other place, and therefore allowing this Bill to proceed to Committee, despite the lack of opportunity for a debate on Second Reading.
The Bill has a clear and straightforward purpose: to allow the Government to lower the age at which qualifying workers are automatically enrolled into a workplace pension scheme from 22 to 18, and to allow the Government to increase the overall amounts being saved by abolishing the lower earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band for workplace pension contributions.
I acknowledge the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden)—my office buddy in this place—who championed a previous Bill in this Session with the same objectives and has handed the baton on to me, to carry forward improvements to retirement provisions for millions of our fellow citizens. He is a doughty champion for people up and down our country, as well as those of North West Durham. We are very lucky to have such a Member in the House.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman may be anticipating that we will get past this group of amendments, and we will then have a debate on clauses 1 and 2. I hope he will address his remarks to the specific amendments that we are debating at the moment.
Jonathan Gullis
I am more than happy to do that, and to return later on to the clauses, Sir Christopher.
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East for his amendments, which I understand aim to remove the regulation-making power to reduce the age of automatic enrolment, and replace it with a new minimum age of 16 for automatic enrolment and re-enrolment, and make consequential amendments. I am grateful for his explanation as to why he believes a lower minimum age would be beneficial. I would certainly support sitting down and discussing it with him at a later date, but this Bill seeks to amend the legislative framework for automatic enrolment to deliver the measures set out in the 2017 AE review, which considered the matter of a lower minimum age, weighed the evidence and concluded that starting from age 18 was the right approach. I am not convinced by the hon. Member’s arguments to depart from that finding today. As he knows, the Bill gives regulation-making powers to the Secretary of State to lower the age, subject to a statutory review and the use of the affirmative procedure. He will therefore have a further opportunity to make his case to colleagues in this House and other stakeholders when that consultation takes place. I look forward to working with him on that. If I may, I will return to some wider comments—
The Chair
Order. We are discussing the amendments only. We will have the opportunity to discuss things more generally when we get to clause stand part.
Jonathan Gullis
Thank you, Sir Christopher. I can give way to the hon. Lady—
The Chair
Does the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West wish to participate in this debate or in the more general debate?
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I will address my remarks purely to the amendments.
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East for his work on the subject. He made a deeply personal and heartfelt point about his own experience. However, there has been a wide range of discussion and debate on the matter, and I believe that this afternoon we ought to focus on the Bill itself. I am aware that time is pressing, and given the matters being discussed in the main Chamber, I will leave my remarks at that for now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
I have respect for the hon. Member for Glasgow East, as he knows. I listened carefully to what he said. He set out his personal story beforehand, and it is very powerful. I reiterate the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and by the hon. Member for Reading East. This was looked at as part of the 2017 review, and there will be a statutory consultation to follow it up.
David Linden
I must say that in moving the amendment, I had rather hoped that more consideration and debate would be given to it. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Reading East, I am baffled that the Labour party has nothing to say. Perhaps that is consistent with its policy positions these days. It was not that long ago that hordes of young people at Glastonbury were chanting the name of the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). This rather strikes me as a bit odd. I understand that the Government have not always been the kind of folk who tend to have lots of lovely things to say about the labour movement or young people, but I am particularly baffled that this Labour party has nothing to say, nor any explanation as to why it has arrived at this policy position, other than to say, “We agree with that lot.”
With that in mind, I have sought to stimulate debate—rather unsuccessfully—but I look forward to the Bill making progress, I hope. I do not disagree with the Bill itself, as I said, but when we come to later stages I hope that we can agree to improve automatic enrolment further and to give this a little more consideration than it has been given today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jonathan Gullis
Thank you for educating me on Committee procedure, Sir Christopher. I clearly need to read up a lot more in “Erskine May”. I look forward to learning it at a later date.
I put clearly on the record my thanks to the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. This gives me the opportunity to thank her for securing Government support for the Bill, which she has worked tirelessly behind the scenes to do since entering her office. She has been working to get it into Parliament and, I hope, implemented as quickly as possible to ensure this for young people, apprentices, in particular, two of whom I have in my constituency office. Jessica and Mya are 18, paid well and will now be able to start building up their pension, which is totally brilliant for them. I look forward to having ensured that they provide for themselves in future.
The automatic enrolment framework was introduced by the Pensions Act 2008 and was gradually brought in for all employers across the UK, starting in 2012. By January 2023, 10.8 million people had been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension and 2.2 million employers were complying with their duties, with about an additional £33 billion in real terms saved in 2021, compared with 2012.
In 2017, the Government carried out a year-long review of automatic enrolment, with a panel of independent, expert advisers, resulting in a report, “Maintaining the momentum”, which set out recommendations to expand the workplace pensions framework. The proposed measures were widely supported by parliamentarians, stakeholders—including those representing employers and workers—and of course the pensions industry. The Bill is the first crucial step in implementing those recommendations, in that it will provide the necessary legislative powers. Helping people to save for later life should be one of the Government’s key priorities, particularly as the Bill will have a significant impact on the delivery of long-term investment to areas outside metropolitan London where there are fewer young people in part-time jobs.
Margaret Ferrier
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I would like to make some brief comments of support, as this Bill sits in the reserved space and naturally will apply in Scotland on Royal Assent.
We have already seen how automatic enrolment has successfully brought many more members of the public into a pension scheme, which will only serve to benefit them in later life and in retirement. Particularly as we are facing a cost of living crisis and many people are finding it much harder to put away spare cash for a rainy day, it is important and right that contributing to a pension from a younger age is made easier. For the younger generation just starting out in the workplace, retirement looks like a speck on the horizon—too far off to think about for some time yet. I am sure we all remember feeling the same; pensions were the last thing on our mind at that age. It is crucial, however, to start making those savings earlier in life, so that there is less pressure later, as retirement approaches and people have the realisation that they have not saved as much as they need.
A general lack of understanding about pensions is a real problem when it comes to future planning. Research by the Social Market Foundation has shown that most of the population nearing retirement age do not actually know how much money they will need to see them through retirement. The typical person aged 50 to 64 has pension savings that are 58% short of what they require. That adds up to a total annual savings gap of £132 billion across the country for those reaching retirement age.
I hope that this legislation, if passed, will have some positive impacts for the harder-to-reach groups in society: women, people with disabilities, and ethnic minorities. They already have substantially lower-value pension pots on average. However, I wonder whether, when eliminating the lower earnings limit for contributions and laying regulations, the Secretary of State might consider this being for employers only, and having a higher threshold for employee contributions in the light of the current economic difficulties.
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North on successfully steering his Bill through its legislative stages so far. Last year, I was lucky enough to see my own private Member’s Bill through to Royal Assent—incidentally, it was also on pensions policy—and I know how much hard work that is for the Member and for those supporting him, so well done.
Matt Rodda
Once again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I commend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North for his work on this Bill, and, indeed, other Members from across the House and the wider policy discussion about the importance of auto-enrolment. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West rightly said, pensions adequacy is a very important issue facing the whole of our society; it is a matter of great importance. We should, across the House, be encouraging people to save for their future, so it is important to debate this issue today.
I particularly want to say, in the time that I have, that auto-enrolment in itself is a great public policy success of the last few years. It dates back to the work of the Pensions Commission for the last Labour Government. The coalition Government implemented this change in 2012, and there has been growth in the number of people saving for a pension as a result. That is a commendable step forward.
However, pensions adequacy remains an issue and it is important for us to continue to go forward. In doing so, we need to work in a gradual, sensible and practical way to try to encourage auto-enrolment, and to work with stakeholders such as businesses, savers themselves and, indeed, society as a whole to try to take this work forward. In that spirit, I have some questions for the Minister.
This Bill will clearly offer real advantages to many younger people, who will be saving not only a greater sum, but from an earlier point in their life. That will help to build a much better pension pot for those pension savers. My questions for the Minister are primarily about the nature of the consultation, because as we have heard, it is hugely important that we work with pension savers themselves, with employers and with other stakeholder organisations to ensure that there is consensus on this issue and that policy is developed in a sensible way. Therefore I would like the Minister to explain to the Committee a little more about the nature of the consultation: in particular, what work the Department has done to encourage pension savers, especially young people, to be aware of the potential to save more for a pension in the future; the discussion that she has had with employers, both individual employers and employer organisations; and what she will do to continue to work with them, because when this legislation is implemented, it is a step forward for them—it is a greater contribution. We need to work with them.
I would like to know what work the Minister is doing with trade unions. They have a very important part to play in the roll-out of auto-enrolment. I was glad that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned that and acknowledged the significant work that they do. I am also interested in the consultation, in so far as it has reached out to advice organisations such as Which? and many others that have an important role in the wider money and savings debate. I hope that she is discussing with them the importance of this.
My second question is about when the Department hopes to use these powers. As has been said, the Bill allows the Government the power to do this and explains how it would happen through a statutory instrument. However, the Bill does not specify when this might happen. The Minister has talked in the past about the mid-2020s. I would be grateful if she clarified how she defines mid-2020s, and whether she will take into account any other factors such as the overall performance of the economy and the nature of any continuing cost of living crisis as we approach that time.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North for his work on this matter, and I thank colleagues from across the House. I look forward to further answers from the Minister about the importance of consultation and bringing stakeholder groups with us on this important journey.
Laura Trott
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and, in absentia, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham, on this excellent Bill, which will expand the benefits of automatic enrolment into workplace pensions to younger people and lower-paid workers.
I think we all agree that automatic enrolment has been a huge game changer in the workplace pension savings market over the past decade. Private sector workplace pension participation among eligible employees has increased by 44 percentage points since 2012, to 86% in 2021. As has been mentioned a couple of times, it has been especially transformative for women, low earners and young people, who historically have been poorly served by or excluded from workplace pensions. The proportion of women in the private sector participating in a workplace pension reached 87% in 2021, above that of men and more than double what it was in 2012.
Thanks to automatic enrolment, the overwhelming majority of eligible workers are now enrolled in a workplace pension, saving an asset for the future. Automatic enrolment is re-establishing a culture of retirement saving for a new generation. However, we know that there is more to do. The Government have made it clear that their ambition has always been to deliver on the 2017 automatic enrolment review measures. The review proposed two key measures: extending AE to young adults aged 18 to 21 by lowering the age criteria for enrolment; and removing the lower earnings limit, which would improve saving levels among low and moderate earners.
Since I took up my role as Minister for Pensions, I have been determined to make progress on AE expansion, and I am therefore delighted to confirm that the Government are supporting my hon. Friend’s Bill to do exactly that. The legislation will mean that younger workers and those who are in lower-paid employment—often because they work part time owing to personal circumstances, such as caring responsibilities—will be able to participate fully in automatic enrolment. For the first time, every worker will benefit from an employment contribution if they are enrolled or opt in; that is key to boosting the overall amounts being saved into a workplace pension. The powers in this Bill allow a Government-defined authority to deliver the changes set out in the 2017 review reforms, which Parliament has debated on numerous occasions, and I think there is broad agreement that it should become law.
On the questions from the hon. Member for Reading East, the Government are clear that implementing the expansion of automatic enrolment can only take place following consultation. That will be a consultation on the implementation approach and the timetable. He mentioned employer and employee engagement in particular. We absolutely need a full comms campaign, and—to the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow East—we could also look at what we can do for 16-year-olds. Even if we do not get quite where the hon. Member for Glasgow East wants us to with the age, I think there is more we can do to encourage them to opt in. We can discuss that as part of the consultation.
Trade unions were part of the original 2017 work, and I am very grateful to them for that. We have spoken to them frequently since, as we have to employer organisations. We will hold a series of roundtables now as we move towards the consultation, and we will involve them in the consultation. On timing, I would like to launch the consultation in the autumn, with this Bill going through, I hope, in the near future. I cannot say anything further than “mid-2020s”, I am afraid, but as soon as I am in a position to update the hon. Member for Reading East, I will of course do so.
Our objective is to maintain the broad political consensus for workplace pensions, which has been an important part of the success of the reforms since the beginning. The approach taken in the Bill to guarantee meaningful and detailed consultation to help implement the changes will help to build enduring support for this important work to boost the retirement aspirations of millions of our fellow citizens. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Jonathan Gullis
May I put on record my thanks to you, Sir Christopher, and to everyone who has contributed to this short, constructive debate? I thank all Members who agreed to serve on the Committee, in particular the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, who has become a good friend in the House and a done a lot on pensions. Also, he may not want to admit it, but the hon. Member for Glasgow East and I are good friends, but I am sure that he will not put that on any endorsement leaflets any time soon.
David Linden
On a point of order, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the Committee inadvertently. We cannot have that on the record; my constituents will deselect me.
Jonathan Gullis
I look forward to doing a podcast with the hon. Gentleman very soon to discuss all the great work that he does in the House as a SNP Member.
The Bill makes certain that people in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, where nearly one in four people are not auto-enrolled in a pension, will have more financial security in the long term. It will simplify the process to mean that for just a few pounds a week, and through the power of compound interest, people could be £30,000 better off in retirement. That is absolutely transformative, which is why the Bill is critical.
I also thank the hon. Member for Reading East, whom I hugely admire in the House. I assure him that I too will keep the Government’s feet to the fire from the Government Benches so that we get an actual implementation date, because I do not like references to wishy-washy mid-2020s. I want to see a date firmly in writing. I am delighted that the consultation will take place in the autumn and I look forward then to hearing about a firm date.
I want to finish by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham—he deserves another shout-out—for his support throughout the passage of the Bill and for putting the case forward with Onward, a fantastic think-tank, which has done a lot of work with him to put the argument. I am delighted and proud that he was very kind in asking me to carry on his great work as he ascended to higher office and as I descended at the same time. I thank the Minister for getting the Bill supported by the Government, and for how she has worked with me, officials and obviously the Treasury, twisting arms wherever necessary to get the Bill over the line and, I hope, on the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
David Linden
On a point of order, Sir Christopher. I thank you for chairing the proceedings in Committee and pay tribute to the Clerk, Chris Wilson, for his help in drafting amendments. I look forward to the Bill proceeding to the other House.
The Chair
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, and I am sure that he speaks for everyone in expressing thanks to everybody. I add to that thanks to our hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who has facilitated more progress on Private Members’ Bills during this Session than I think we have ever seen in the past.
Today is a very poignant day to be debating this particular Bill because the Chancellor has made quite an important announcement on the issue of pensions. As I was leaving the Chamber in order to be on time in this Committee a number of people said, “Now you are going off to top up your pension immediately following the announcement.” That is by the bye. I thank everyone for attending the Committee sitting, and congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North on introducing the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Firearms Bill
Wednesday 15th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Firearms Act 2023 View all Firearms Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
The Chair
Welcome, colleagues, to this important Committee. My selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available online and in the room. We will have just one debate, on the selected amendments and on clauses 1, 2 and 3 stand part of the Bill. I will first call Holly Lynch to move amendment 1. At the completion of the debate, I will ask her whether she wishes to withdraw her amendments or press them to a Division. As Shaun Bailey, who introduced the Bill, is now a Home Office Parliamentary Private Secretary—congratulations, Shaun, I think—I will call Simon Baynes to speak to the Bill, and other Members will then be able to catch my eye and be called to speak. It is a narrow, two-purpose Bill, and the amendments are very narrow. I have a reputation for being very fierce on Second Reading speeches in Committee, when we should be focusing on amendments.
Clause 1
Miniature rifle ranges and shooting galleries
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 19, at end insert —
“(4B) Before a firearm certificate may be issued or renewed for an operator of a range or gallery under this section, the chief officer of police must be satisfied that there is nothing in the social media profile of the applicant for an operator’s licence to indicate that the applicant is not fit to be entrusted with a miniature rifle or ammunition for a miniature rifle.”
The intention of this amendment is to ensure that social media profiles are taken into account in the granting of the firearms licences which will be required under this Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 19, at end insert—
“(4C) Before a firearm certificate may be issued or renewed for an operator of a range or gallery under this section, the chief officer of police must meet privately with members of the applicant’s family or household before deciding whether the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm under section 27 of this Act.”
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 23, at end insert—
“In section 32ZA (Fees in connection with authority under section 5), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Any regulations relating to fees for licences issued under section 11 of this Act relating to miniature rifle ranges must require payment equal to the expected cost of issuing such licences.’”
Clause stand part.
Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.
Holly Lynch
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, in these important proceedings. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich West on the progression of his private Member’s Bill and the hon. Member for Clwyd South, who is the custodian of the legislation this afternoon. I will speak to amendments 1 to 3, which are in my name, and clauses 1 to 3.
We very much welcome the fact that the Bill will clamp down on loopholes related to miniature rifles. Clause 1 is fundamental to that; it makes limited changes to the Firearms Act 1968 by introducing a requirement for the operators of miniature rifle ranges to obtain a firearm certificate and by restricting such ranges to .22 rimfire weapons only. Clause 2 will introduce a new offence of possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture, and provides clear definitions and sentences. We recognise that the Bill follows the publication of the firearms safety consultation, which sought views on improving the controls on miniature rifle ranges. Some 73% of those who responded to the consultation agreed or strongly agreed that the operator of a miniature rifle range should be required to have a firearm certificate.
We support the legislation, but there is concern that it is very limited in scope and misses an opportunity to deliver a significant and long-sought-after tightening up of the firearms licensing regime more broadly. I have spoken to police officers involved in firearms licensing, who tell me that there are examples of miniature rifles being adapted into more dangerous weapons and used to facilitate criminality. It was felt that the requirement for someone who is operating a miniature rifle range to apply for a firearms licence should be accompanied by further conditions, in recognition of the fact that they are running such an establishment, rather than simply possessing a firearm. It was also felt that the running of the range itself should be subject to routine checks on compliance, but that is missing from clauses 1 and 2.
Generally speaking, we rightly have robust firearms laws in the UK, which have broad and enduring support. Firearms incidents are rare, but all Members will be deeply troubled by recent examples of the fatal use of firearms by licensed firearms holders. We have tabled amendments 1 to 3, while recognising the scope of the legislation, in the hope that they could be rolled out to firearms licensing more broadly. They seek to introduce sensible and proportionate changes to the licensing regime, taking into consideration the learning from recent atrocities.
Amendment 1 would ensure that a person’s social media presence was taken into account when an application for a firearms licence under clause 1 was being considered. Members will be aware of the report summarising the Independent Office for Police Conduct investigation into the prior contact between Devon and Cornwall police and Jake Davison, who committed the Plymouth mass shooting, which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will go into in more detail. The report stated that Davison
“posted prolifically on Reddit… about incels and incel ideology”.
Although he did not express an overt wish to harm anyone, he was involved in the heavily misogynistic and violent incel online community, and
“He also discussed his poor mental health, disillusionment with life and relationships, and dislike of his mother on Reddit and YouTube.”
The report did not identify any individual instance of misconduct or poor performance from Devon and Cornwall police in relation to the vetting of Davison’s social media during the licensing process, as at that time the statutory guidance on firearms licensing included limited advice on conducting social media checks.
In its six recommendations, the Independence Office for Police Conduct stated that statutory guidance on firearms licensing should be amended
“to require that open-source research is conducted for all applications, with more intrusive checks for high risk applicants.”
Amendment 1 reflects that recommendation. Again, it is within the scope of the Bill; I hope that the Government will recognise that and adopt he amendment.
Amendment 2 states:
“Before a firearm certificate may be issued or renewed for an operator of a range or gallery under this section, the…police must meet privately with members of the applicant’s family or household before deciding whether the applicant is fit to be entrusted with”
a firearms licence. In its December 2022 report, “Firearms licensing regulations in Scotland”, following the Skye shootings, the Scottish Affairs Committee recommended that
“the UK Government change the statutory guidance on firearms licensing to more strongly recommend that police forces involve present and former conjugal partners in the application and renewal process. Echoing the system used in Canada”.
In the most recent instances of unlawful and fatal use of licensed firearms, family members of the perpetrators faced the greatest risks. Amendment 2 would place a duty on police forces to discuss the applicant’s suitability for a licence with their family members in private meetings. That would significantly enhance the referee system. The Scottish Affairs Committee report stated that it had significant concerns about the process,
“which must be addressed before it is fit for purpose.”
It noted
“concerns about applicants canvassing for referees, and lack of mandatory consultation with people close to firearms licence applicants.”
Amendment 3 is almost consequential to amendments 1 and 2, but provides for a long overdue rebalancing. It is the first ask of any police force when we raise firearms licensing with it. The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire said on Second Reading that the Government
“have committed to consulting this year—probably in the summer or early autumn—about increasing…fees to make sure that the full costs are recovered by police forces.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2023; Vol. 728, c. 1076.]
I very much welcome that. I hope hon. Members will agree that the proposals are entirely appropriate, and that the proposals for additional checks are grounded in clear recommendations born out of painful lessons learned.
The financial implications of licensing are addressed in amendment 3. On Second Reading, the Minister revealed that as of 2 March, four constabularies in England and Wales had unacceptably high backlogs for firearms licences, including temporary licences. I suspect that resourcing is part of the challenge for forces, but do any of us constituency MPs want officers to come off the frontline, and step away from neighbourhood policing, in order to bring down the backlog in firearms licensing?
Under the amendment, only the costs of the process would be recouped, but even that would be a significant rebalancing for police forces. I hope the Government will accept the amendment. They could run a pilot scheme covering miniature rifles, with a view to considering its merit, and then extend it to all firearms. I hope the Government and the Minister are listening. We certainly welcome this Bill; we just wish there was a little more in it.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and to take the Bill forward on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West. As the hon. Member for Halifax said, I am the custodian of the Bill, which is a big responsibility, and I greatly appreciate the role. I also took the Bill through its Second Reading in the Chamber on 3 March.
It is widely acknowledged that the UK has some of the toughest gun controls in the world, but it is important that the Government keep those controls under review and take action to strengthen them further when evidence suggests that that is necessary. I thank the hon. Member for Halifax for her comments. Before I speak about the clauses, I will address her proposed amendments. I value her comments, and she made some valid points, specifically about social media profiles, the chief officer meeting applicants’ families and households, and ensuring that payment equals the cost of issuing licences. I trust that the Minister has heard and taken on board those points, but given the narrow, very specific scope ofthe Bill, I question whether this is the correct place for the discussions brought about by the amendments. Amendments 1 and 2 pose wider, valid questions to explore. Amendment 3 could perhaps be covered by secondary legislation. As the hon. Lady said, these points need broader discussion, but that is not possible within the scope of the Bill and given what we hope to achieve today. However, I appreciate her bringing the amendments forward.
The clauses will further strengthen firearms controls by addressing two vulnerabilities that could be exploited by criminals, terrorists, and those with malicious intent. Clause 1 removes the exemption in firearms controls that allows a person to operate a miniature rifle range without first obtaining a firearm certificate from the local police. The Bill will place a requirement on them to obtain a firearm certificate, and they will therefore be subject to the important police checks that are done before a certificate is issued. Those checks cover the suitability of a person’s having access to firearms for a legitimate purpose—in this case, to operate a miniature rifle range—and ensure that the firearms and associated ammunition will be handled and stored safely. The firearms used in miniature rifle ranges, which are rifles chambered for .22 rimfire cartridges, must in all other circumstances be held on a certificate issued by the police. Clause 1 will helpfully clarify in law that these are the firearms used at the rifle ranges, and will bring their control in line with controls on those firearms in all other circumstances.
Clause 2 gives the police the power that they need to prevent criminals from manufacturing unlawful ammunition. The key components of ammunition are the propellant, which helps to propel a projectile from a firearm by burning rapidly, and the primer, which is an explosive chemical compound that ignites the propellant. Both are already controlled, and there are offences relating to the unlawful possession of complete ammunition. However, the police have expressed concern that these controls are not sufficient to prevent criminals from acquiring the components and going on to unlawfully manufacture ammunition. The clause will close that gap by making it an offence to possess the components of ammunition with the intent to manufacture unlawful ammunition.
I am advised that there will be law-abiding shooters who may have components of ammunition that they use lawfully, for such purposes as reloading ammunition, which they are legally able to possess by virtue of their firearms certificate. The offence in clause 2 has therefore been drafted in a way that will not criminalise such lawful activities. It requires first that the person committing the new offence has any of the components in their possession; secondly, that the person has the intent of manufacturing ammunition; and thirdly and critically, that the person would have no lawful basis for having the ammunition once it was assembled and complete. In that way, the clause ensures that those who are able to hold ammunition by virtue of a firearm certificate issued under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, or who are registered firearms dealers under the Act and permitted to possess or manufacture such ammunition, will not be caught by the new offence when going about their lawful activities.
This is a small but important Bill. Events such as those in Plymouth in August 2021, or more recently at Epsom College, are clear reminders that we cannot afford to be complacent about the risks that firearms can present. The Bill will seek to address two identified vulnerabilities in this country’s robust firearms controls, and it is right to take action to address those vulnerabilities. I have pleasure in presenting the Bill to the Committee.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Sir Gary. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I thank the hon. Members for West Bromwich West, and for Clwyd South, for promoting and sponsoring the Bill. It is a welcome change to the gun laws.
As alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, in my constituency we suffered a tragedy in August 2021, when five members of our community were shot by someone with a pump-action rifle. That experience will inform my comments on the amendments. I hope that the Minister will pass them on to the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, who will, towards the end of the month, meet face to face members of the Keyham and Ford communities affected by the tragedy, to look at what came out of the prevention of future deaths report.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I declare my interest as chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council. I have to start by saying that I was somewhat surprised to see the measures presented in a private Member’s Bill, rather than Government legislation. There was a full Government consultation on the issue, with a very large number of responses. It came to a consensus—I think that has been generally recognised this afternoon—but one does still wonder: why a private Member’s Bill? Having said that, the Bill is good, including from the BSSC’s perspective. I congratulate the Bill’s promoter—or should I say promoters? We need to thank the very large number of people who contributed to the consultation, and to the drafting of the clauses, not least the National Small-bore Rifle Association, which created the framework of clause 1 on miniature rifle ranges.
On clause 1, target shooting with small-bore rifles is a challenging sport that is open to men and women of all ages, and accessible to competitors with a wide range of disabilities. British shooters regularly achieve international success, and since 2000, the home nations competing at the Commonwealth games have won seven gold, eight silver and eight bronze medals in small-bore rifle shooting. The law allows people to use small-calibre rifles at miniature rifle ranges without holding a firearm certificate. That exemption has provided an opportunity to introduce scouts, cadets, youth organisations, schools, colleges, universities and the wider public to the sport of shooting. I welcome the fact that the Government recognise the value of that exemption and are retaining it.
The BSSC agrees that the operator of a miniature rifle range should hold a firearm certificate in order to purchase, acquire and possess firearms and ammunition. That will ensure that they are subject to the same checks as other firearm owners and that they are responsible for the security of the firearms and ammunition. Miniature rifle ranges have traditionally used .22 rim-fire rifles. I agree that that should remain the case. I am pleased that the Government have clarified the point, and that it has appeared in the Bill.
Firearms law is administered by the police, in accordance with guidance issued by the Home Office, and no doubt the Minister will explain that the guidance is to be amended to recognise the new legislation. The non-statutory guidance sets out the “good reason” that is required to justify possession of a firearm. I will be grateful if the Minister confirms that the operation of a miniature rifle range will be regarded as a good reason for possessing suitable firearms and ammunition.
Large numbers of law-abiding shooters reload their own cartridges. They do so to save costs, to improve accuracy and to provide them with ammunition that is not commercially available—for example, for vintage or historical firearms. Viable ammunition requires a primer and a propellant, and there are already controls on those components. Some elements of the drafting of clause 2 on ammunition components—specifically, bullets and cartridge cases—mean that those are not controlled. That may need some review for clarity. I hope that the Minister and the Bill’s promoter can engage on that as the Bill proceeds.
Completed cartridges, to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies, may be possessed only with a suitably conditioned firearm certificate. Any ammunition loaded must conform to the calibre and quantity specified on the firearm certificate, and cartridges must be stored securely to prevent access to them by unauthorised people. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South recognised that in his remarks. Shooters who hold the relevant, valid certificates, permits and licences, and who load section 1 cartridges authorised by their certificates, do not commit an offence.
The BSSC was consulted on the changes proposed by the Government and discussed those matters with them. It will no doubt remain a matter for the police and the courts as to how intent to manufacture ammunition unlawfully is to be proven. However, I am satisfied that in the case of lawful shooters, reloading ammunition that they have authority to possess, no offence is committed under the proposed legislation.
On the Opposition amendments, I note that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax, referred to recent incidents. I understand her wishing to debate such issues—I do not in any way discount them, or indeed the comments of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport in that regard, because they are important—but I hope that the Minister believes that we need to stand back, review the facts, the coroners’ reports and other evidence, and consult, rather than legislating immediately in a private Member’s Bill.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
I am delighted to speak in the Bill Committee, not least because I was for a decade a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers’ firearms committee, working alongside NABIS, the National Ballistics Intelligence Service. I therefore welcome the Bill, which is much needed.
For more than 25 years, we have prided ourselves in the UK on having the best firearms legislation in the world. We only have to look to places such as America to see how good the UK is, and we cannot deny the strength of our firearms legislation. However, there is a clear need, 25 years on, to address some problems with it.
We need new legislation partly because the internet has grown, and there is now 3D printing, which can produce 3D guns. The internet also allows people to order ammunition, leading to the disruption we have seen. People receive parcels of ammunition just through using the internet.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
Sir Gary, it is a pleasure to appear in front of you. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West for promoting this modest-in-size, but very important Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South for being its custodian. I thank Opposition Members for the consensual way in which they have worked, and for the eloquence shown today. I thank all those who have contributed. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has a lot to contribute in this area, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon has a lot of expertise, and I thank the hon. Member for Leicester East for her interest in this subject.
At the outset, I should declare that I may be one of the few members of this Committee who had a hobby as a keen handgun shooter. It might be a matter of interest to the Committee that I left it until the very last day to hand my Browning in—it was a wonderful present that I treasured and looked after—and that was the same day as my second son was born. That was an interesting day for me. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That was the second of my four sons, who are now all grown up.
I will speak briefly about the amendments and clauses. Amendment 1 would have the effect of mandating in law that the police must check the social media profile of any person applying for a firearm certificate for the purposes of operating a miniature rifle range before issuing such a certificate, and to be satisfied that the checks do not reveal anything that suggests that the person should not have access to a miniature rifle or ammunition for such a rifle.
Clause 1, to which the amendment relates, removes the existing exemption in firearms controls that allows a person to operate a miniature rifle range without first obtaining a firearm certificate from the local police. That means that, in future, any person who wishes to operate such a rifle range will first need to apply to the police to obtain a firearm certificate, issued under the Firearms Act 1968. The applicant will therefore be subject to all the checks relating to suitability that the police conduct on all applicants who seek to obtain a firearm licence. Those checks are set out in the statutory guidance to the police on firearms licensing that came into effect in November 2021 and which was refreshed and strengthened on 14 February this year—there is no relevance to Valentine’s day.
The statutory guidance requires the police to consider conducting an open source check of social media presence and the activity of the person who applies for the firearm certificate to establish whether he or she has openly or repeatedly expressed or sympathises with views that may suggest that their access to firearms would be inappropriate. The checks that are sought by the amendment would be considered when a person applies for a licence to operate a miniature rifle range, or indeed for any other purpose, and not just for those seeking to operate a miniature rifle range, which would be the effect of the amendment.
The police have a legal obligation to have regard to the statutory guidance, which will be reviewed, in exercising their firearms licensing functions. The Government have said that we will keep the guidance under review and will not hesitate to refresh it and to strengthen it further whenever the evidence suggests that that is required.
The Government will consider such further changes to the guidance now, and possibly further changes in the law, following the outcomes of the recent inquests into those who were tragically shot dead by Jake Davison in Plymouth on 12 August 2021, and the expansive recommendations made by the coroner. Those recommendations sit alongside the outcomes and recommendations made by the Independent Office for Police Conduct following the investigation into the issue of a firearm licence to Jake Davison, and also recommendations made by the Scottish Affairs Committee, following its review of firearms licensing. It is clear that the Government will further strengthen the checks and controls on firearms licensing in the coming weeks and months.
Specifically in relation to social media checks, the Government have noted in the statutory guidance that the National Police Chiefs’ Council will develop a new national model, which I am sure will be helpful. When ready, it will assist all police forces in conducting social media checks in cases, to help them meet the requirements of the statutory guidance. It will be very useful to have a national scheme so that we do not have pockets or silos of good or bad practice, which is very important. Against that background, I would be grateful if the amendment were withdrawn.
I move briefly to amendment 2, which would have the effect of mandating that the police must meet privately with members of the family or household of a person seeking a firearm certificate in order to operate a miniature rifle range before they make a decision on whether to grant such a certificate. The underlying purpose of the amendment is clear and sensible. Those who know the applicant best and those who have a unique insight into the applicant’s temperament or behaviour may be particularly well placed to provide information about suitability. It may of course be difficult in some circumstances for an applicant’s partner or close family member to provide information that directly results in the application being refused. That person could be subjected to reprisals if the applicant considers that that person is to blame for the refusal. The statutory guidance for the police on their firearms licensing functions, which was refreshed by the Government on 14 February, covers that point explicitly in relation to partners where domestic abuse may be an issue.
I recognise that the scope of the amendment is not restricted to domestic abuse, but has rather more general applicability. In that context, it is worth noting that the statutory guidance to which I have referred invites the police to consider whether to interview individuals other than the applicant or their referees. It mentions the applicant’s partner specifically, where the police consider that contact to be necessary to assess suitability. Again, we are looking to good practice throughout, which is very important. The guidance does not mandate that contact in all cases, which may be the purpose of the amendment, but it draws attention to the fact that the amendment as it stands would have the effect of mandating an interview with members of the applicant’s family or household only in the cases of those wishing to operate miniature rifle ranges rather than in the generality of firearms applications. I know that perhaps that is not the amendment’s intention, but that is what it would do.
The Government feel that that the distinction is unhelpful, however they are keeping the statutory guidance as a whole under review and will consider further changes which may or may not include the terms of the amendment following the outcomes of the recent inquests. I am certain that the Government will consider whether it would be appropriate to amend the guidance to address the specific points addressed by the amendment.
A further review of referees will be undertaken and its results will be incorporated in the statutory guidance, resulting in stronger and more robust checks. I know that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will be happy that that is the way forward.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South said, the Government take the subject very seriously. The UK Government have some of the toughest gun controls in the world, but, as the hon. Member for Leicester East said, it is important that we keep all controls under review and take action when necessary to strengthen the laws further where the evidence suggests that that must be the way forward.
I have been impressed by the nature of the debate and the sincerity with which all speakers have contributed. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to debate the Bill and ask that it be allowed to proceed.
Holly Lynch
I thank the Minister for her thoughtful contribution to the consideration of the Bill. She has put to me that scope is the reason why our amendments will not have the desired impact. She is entirely right, and I put to her that scope is exactly why the amendments will not have the desired impact. That does not mean that there is no merit in the amendments, and it is clear from today’s contributions that there is broad consensus that the amendments have been born out of the important lessons learned, having had a good look at recent tragedies.
I hope that there is progress on this matter, and a commitment particularly on amendment 3 to consult on the cost of firearms licensing. I hope that the Minister takes back to her Home Office colleagues the sense of consensus and the urgency with which we would like to see that work progressed.
I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, who spoke so powerfully with the weight of the experiences of his constituents; his was a powerful contribution to the debate. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that the Minister holds true to her word that there is a commitment to continue to move in the right direction on the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
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
Access to Sport: People with Colour Blindness
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
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to sport for people with colour blindness.
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Twigg. Today I am here to speak about one of the world’s most common inherited conditions. This condition affects 3 million people in the UK. In fact, it is so common that it is estimated that, in the House of Commons, 34 male MPs will have the condition, while 32 female MPs will be carriers. The condition is colour blindness, also known as colour vision deficiency. In the UK, it affects one in 12 boys and men and one in 200 girls and women.
What is colour blindness? It is a common misconception that people with colour blindness just confuse reds and greens. In truth, colour blindness comes in many different types and severities. Although red-green colour blindness is the most common form of the condition, it changes the way people affected view all sorts of colour combinations. Humans see colour through three types of specialised cone cells in the eyes. The cones absorb red, blue and green light. With inherited CVD, one cone type does not function normally; in 25% of cases, it does not function at all. Red-green colour blindness is the colloquial term for a defect in the red or green cones. It is an incurable condition, which neither improves nor deteriorates throughout life.
Last June, I held a drop-in event here in Parliament with the charity Colour Blind Awareness to give MPs the chance to discover what it is like to be colour blind. MPs had the opportunity to try on glasses that simulated the effects of the condition—with some rather entertaining results. They tested themselves by trying to sort a line of socks by colour while wearing the glasses. That was one event where our party political colours became a bit mixed-up! It was all to show the impact of colour blindness on those who have it. As well as the fun, we had academic researchers there to explain their work.
Jokes aside, this is a condition that, in the most severe instances, can have an adverse impact on the daily lives of those affected. Thanks to technology, we live in an increasingly colourful world. In classrooms, interactive smartboards have replaced old-fashioned blackboards. We use tablets and smartphones to entertain us and even to educate younger children. These things often use vibrant colours, and even the Government relied on that vibrant colour palette throughout the covid pandemic, giving public health information that relied on the use of bright graphics and colour indicators.
In an example even closer to home, the BBC’s 2015 general election coverage saw complaints upheld against it because of its inaccessibility to people with colour blindness. The issue was colour pairings: the Conservatives’ blue against the UK Independence party’s purple; Labour’s red against the Liberal Democrats’ orange; and the Lib Dems’ orange against the SNP’s yellow. As they were broadcast, those colour pairings were a nightmare for people with CVD. Lack of accessibility in a range of arenas excludes people with colour blindness from vital aspects of public life and can even hamper their future prospects. That is the sad truth, as people affected by CVD are often an afterthought when it comes to things like that. But it is so much more than that: people who are colour blind are being let down by the Equality Act 2010.
That brings us to the central topic of the debate, which is access to sport for people with colour blindness. The issue was first brought to my attention by a young person in my constituency. Marcus Wells has red-green colour blindness, and from a young age he has done great work to raise awareness of his experiences of grassroots football. At just 10 years old, in 2018, he told a film crew about how simple things such as the colours of balls and cones used in training affected his ability to take part. He said:
“I was really confused at times, why they’d put those cones out, because I thought everyone was seeing like me. Why wouldn’t they put different coloured cones down? It made me feel really upset and frustrated.”
Marcus’s coaches noticed that his enthusiasm and confidence would waver in some of his training sessions, despite his passion and love for the sport. It was only after his diagnosis that they realised this was due to changes in the colour of the kit and equipment being used. Thankfully, the local team were then able to work with Marcus and his family to make sure that they were meeting his needs, but many children with CVD are going undiagnosed, as screening is not currently required in schools or even at optician’s appointments, and that is leading to many promising young athletes getting lost in the system.
Eight per cent. of boys have colour blindness, but research done by Oxford Brookes University suggests that only 6% of men playing elite-level football have the condition. That translates to 25% of colour-blind players like Marcus dropping out due to a lack of accessibility in sport. I am pleased to say that the Football Association and UEFA have introduced colour blindness guidelines for football, while similar guidance has been published by World Rugby, but to date, there is no official published guidance for cricket, hockey or other sports, and even in football and rugby, most clubs and coaches remain unaware of the implications.
We know that encouraging children to take part in sport is a vital aspect of ensuring that they get a healthy start in life. Participating in a team sport is not only good for children’s physical health; it also supports their mental wellbeing and facilitates social inclusion. That is why it is vital that we work to make sure grassroots sport is as accessible as possible, including for people with colour blindness.
It is not only at grassroots level that we see barriers to inclusion. Professional sport is incredibly varied when it comes to its support of people affected by colour blindness, whether that is support for professional athletes or support for fans. Kit clashes are a particularly difficult issue for athletes and fans alike. As a north-east MP—albeit one who does not do football—I know only too well the pride and support that fans have for their respective clubs, with two great football teams in Newcastle and Sunderland battling several times over the years in the famous Tyne and Wear derby. Despite this being a momentous day for so many fans, it has often been a source of frustration for those who cannot join in on the occasion.
This is just as much of an issue on the pitch as it is in the stands. Former Newcastle United player James Perch has colour blindness, and he told the BBC:
“It was because of the stripes—black and white against red and white. I struggled to tell the difference. That game was definitely the toughest.”
He is not alone in finding kit clashes difficult. Nick Bignall, who previously played for Reading, has described how he would end up running into his own teammates or even tackling them. In football, like many sports, marginal gains are important. If we fail to accommodate players with colour blindness, it can hamper their performance and their chances of selection.
We also need to consider the impact on those who are not playing. Professional sport at every level relies on a team of officials to ensure that sport is fair and competitive. Referees are often the unsung heroes of sport, being largely a background figure until the odd moment of controversy brings them to the centre. Referees who suffer from CVD will often find it much more difficult to get the big calls right if we do nothing to support them. If it is difficult to tell the difference between the teams or the players, or even at times spot the ball, they will be hindered in being able to correctly officiate. David Pearson, a former rugby referee, described his experiences of officiating by saying:
“Try calling in an offside line, you’re an assistant referee, you get a line break, where’s the offside line? You just don’t call it. And of course, you get the whole crowd on your back going ‘he’s offside!’”
Meanwhile, for fans, the reality is that kit clashes are a constant issue. Ten premier league games in 2021 were played in kits that were difficult to distinguish for people affected by CVD. Clashes also affect one of the most anticipated games in the rugby union calendar: Wales versus Ireland in the Six Nations. In 2023, the Welsh Rugby Union took the decision to continue to play in red at home, despite knowing that this would prevent tens of thousands of colour-blind fans from enjoying the game.
Times are difficult for many people, and it is a testament to the love that many fans have for their chosen team that they continue to spend their wages on match tickets and pay per views. Those fans should not be let down by pictures that they are unable to watch. As one fan said on Twitter:
“I’d paid a fiver to watch the official stream and I may as well have thrown it out the window.”
Another said:
“I hang my head in despair when I can’t differentiate between the teams, and that can include the referee as well. This happens too often and it spoils my day—nobody seems to care.”
On top of that, there is the important issue of fan safety in stadiums—something we are all very much aware of. We need to ensure that fans with colour blindness are safe in stadiums, but emergency signage and equipment, including emergency evacuation plans, often use colours that prevent colour-blind people from being able to read them, or even make sure that they can identify a steward if needs be. In the UK, only two stadiums have been fully audited for colour blindness accessibility. That must change if we want to make sport a safe environment for all spectators.
I know that the Premier League and the FA have done a lot of work with the charity Colour Blind Awareness better to understand the issues, and I thank them for the briefings they sent me ahead of the debate. The Premier League now has software to identify kit clashes while the English Football League has changed its rules to allow clubs to switch home kits for away if that makes games easier to watch.
I am also aware of great staff, such as FA coach co-ordinator Ryan Davies, who are doing all they can to make the sport inclusive. Ryan suffers from colour blindness, and he attended our drop-in last year. However, the guidance being issued is unfortunately not always followed by clubs, and in many of our other sports it is non-existent, so what do we need?
First, we need cross-departmental working. The Minister needs to have conversations with the education and health teams, and to encourage routine screening of children for colour vision deficiency. Screening is quick and easy, and inexpensive to carry out—and it would help so many young players to identify the problems they are having and ask for accommodations. Outside sport, it would help to tackle the struggles that children with CVD often encounter in classroom settings and ensure they got access to the learning they deserve. It is important to remember that one pupil in every 30 in a co-ed classroom is likely to be colour blind. Teachers must be aware of the issues those children face and should receive training in how to accommodate them.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to have conversations with broadcasters and sports governing bodies to place guidelines for fixtures on a firmer footing. For example, broadcaster contracts could contain clauses allowing the control of content from competition organisers to avoid kit clashes. Broadcasters should also be aware of using TV graphics that might exclude colour-blind people.
Thirdly, we need to ensure that fans with colour blindness are safe in stadiums. I emphasise that emergency signage and equipment, including emergency evacuation plans, often use colours that prevent colour-blind people from being able to read them. I ask the Minister to consider what steps he can take to ensure that the safety issue is addressed by sports authorities. I suspect that he will likely put the responsibility back on the sports governing bodies, but the truth is that the current frameworks are still letting down fans, players and referees. Whether it is the colour of balls, pitch lines, kits or even allergen advice on stadium menus, let us make sure that sport is accessible to the millions of colour-blind people in the UK.
Finally, I ask the Minister to meet with me to discuss in more detail the issues faced by colour-blind people in sport and how we can address them. Most of all, let us make sure that sport, which is starting to address the real difficulties, and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport work with other Departments to tackle the problems faced in education, health and all aspects of life by those with colour blindness.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for leading it. She always raises subjects that are perhaps not very topical but are none the less important, as this one is. She outlined the difficulties that those with colour blindness suffer in their everyday lives. I am glad to say that I am not one of them—she is probably not either—but that does not take away from the issue. In this place, we are tasked with highlighting issues on behalf of those who need assistance.
It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He responds well and understands the issues, and I am sure he will contribute to the debate positively. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister. This is the second day in a row on which I have been called first in Westminster Hall. It seems to be no accolade other than that I am the only other Back Bencher, but that does not take away from the importance of this debate.
The information that the hon. Lady and the charity Colour Blind Awareness sent to us contained a picture comparing normal colour vision with how colour-blind individuals see things. It gives us a wee flavour of what it means to be colour blind. It was extremely useful to see the impact that colour blindness has on sport. The Royal Society for the Protection of the Blind once offered to take me out with a guide dog, so I went to Holywood in my neighbouring constituency, where it is based. The guide dog did not know me, and I did not know it. When I had the blindfold on, I could see absolutely nothing, and that guide dog was my whole contact with what was happening on the footpath. That gave me a real experience of what it is to be blind, and the information that the hon. Lady sent us did the same for colour blindness, so I thank her for that.
It is important that we listen to people’s comments and consider how the condition affects them. Colour blindness affects one in 12 men and one in 200 women. It is caused if one of the three cones—specialised cells that detect red, green and blue—does not work as well as the others or does not work.
I love watching football; I used to play it many moons ago when I was much younger. Like others, I am really thrilled to watch ladies play football—they are very skilled. Last year, in the UEFA women’s Euro 2022, Northern Ireland played England. For the record, we lost 5-0. England were due to wear their crimson away kit, but instead they wore their home kit so the colours would not clash for colour-blind fans. It might be a small thing, but it was a big thing for those who have colour blindness and cannot differentiate between the two teams on the pitch and on the TV. That is an example of what can be done. The green of the Northern Ireland shirt and the red of the Lionesses’ shirt would have clashed, as green and red commonly have that impact on vision. It would have looked like 22 players playing among themselves, rather than playing against each other. That would have been the interpretation on TV.
Teams often change colours to make them easier to see. In my opinion, it should be compulsory to discuss that before every game with a potential colour clash. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss that with the Football Association to ensure that it is always checked before the match—long in advance of the match, I should say, as a precursor—so that there is not a clash for those who watch the match through eyes that are colour blind? That is a simple thing to ask for. I know the Minister is always keen to respond to us, and I believe we should take that factor on board.
Another factor that we should discuss more is stadium safety and security, which the hon. Lady referred to. Colour-blind people can struggle to understand wayfinding information on venues and tickets because of its colour. Many times I have gone to a football match and been given a ticket of a certain colour. It is no problem for those of us who are not colour blind. We are told, “Go to this place,” and we all know where it is as the colour is the way to find it. For those who are colour blind, that becomes a problem—not to mention emergency signage, equipment and evacuation plans.
The organisation Colour Blind Awareness notes that in the entire United Kingdom only two stadiums have been fully audited for colour-blindness accessibility. I have a gentle question for the Minister that we should try to address. What has been done to encourage the many hundreds of other stadiums to ensure that they are audited for colour-blindness accessibility to ensure that everyone can participate fully in sport? The Minister has always been helpful in answering our questions in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall. I am confident that he will do that in a positive fashion.
The issues apply to sports fans and the many guys who play football regularly. Sports presenters and journalists have raised awareness of the issue on social media and TV programmes, and have asked sporting organisations to do better. I could be a wee bit mischievous and say that it might be a good thing for Gary Lineker to do; we would all support him. He might even—I say this to him with gentleness—mention it this Saturday night on his football programme. We live in hope. I say that having been a Leicester City supporter since I was 14 years old, when they were in the FA Cup final in 1969 against Manchester City and lost 1-0. They were my team then and they are my team now.
There are many great sports people who suffer with colour blindness, and I will mention two or three across sports. They are a credit to their sport and fantastic role models who did not let the condition get in the way of what they wanted to do in life. Tiger Woods, a household name in golf; Jürgen Klopp, manager of Liverpool, and a fantastic football player in his day; and Bill Beaumont, the rugby player, are all colour blind. They are representatives of completely different sports, but the impact the condition has is the same. Of course, there is no need to worry about the yellow and red cards on the football pitch. One is light and one is dark, and it is possible to tell the difference. If a player is sent off, they are sent off and will know why. That is just an example.
It is estimated that 40% of colour-blind pupils leave school not fully aware that they are colour blind, because they do not speak out about what they are experiencing. Sometimes at school they might feel that they were different but not let on, because people would not understand what they were on about, and would probably give them a quizzical look. We should do all we can to speak out on this issue, because it is more common than we think. We can learn about social behaviours to treat people with colour blindness better. It is also important to train teachers how to identify and support pupils who suffer with colour blindness.
The hon. Member for Blaydon referred to better co-ordination between Departments. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I know he will contact the relevant Minister in the Department for Education to see what has been done with sport in schools and education. That is my third ask; hon. Lady has already asked it, but I want to reinforce that. It might be helpful for the Education Secretary to undertake research on why schools are not responding better.
I conclude by thanking the hon. Member for Blaydon for raising the issue. She often raises issues that I am happy to support. It is our duty to raise issues that people might forget about. As my party’s health spokesperson, I have been involved in significant work on eye health, so I understand the importance of the issue. This is an aspect of eye health that I am happy to learn more about, and today has been an opportunity for that learning, through the hon. Lady’s graciousness in sending information relevant to the debate.
I hope consideration will be given to the comments of Members, the two shadow Ministers and the Minister who will sum up at the end, and that there will be greater support for those who are colour blind, especially in the sporting industry. What a joy it is to participate in sport, and to participate equally! Those with colour blindness are unfortunately not able to do that to the fullest extent. I know the Minister will be keen to respond in a positive fashion, and to give us the answers that we want.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Twigg. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as I do on many occasions.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). She is committed to rare diseases, syndromes and conditions that affect the daily life of so many people and their families, and she works continuously in this area. I am happy to put on record my thanks to her for all the outstanding work that she does to make others aware of many conditions. I also thank the charity Colour Blindness Awareness for its briefing and for raising awareness of these issues, which many of us have never actually thought about. We have already heard about the amazing numbers of people who are either carriers or affected by colour blindness, yet the issue is not taken as seriously as it should be in sport.
I also make a plea. This issue does not just affect rugby and football. My granddaughter plays netball, which is, I think, the biggest sport played by women and girls—certainly in my area in Scotland and, I think, across the UK. Although fewer women are affected by this condition, they have mums and dads who watch avidly. We have to think about all sports here.
The briefing from Colour Blindness Awareness made me aware that in England children are no longer screened for colour blindness as part of the healthy child screening programme. Screening has been stopped on the basis of evidence that has perhaps been discredited. Teachers are not trained how to identify and support colour-blind children. In Scotland and Wales, however, there is colour vision screening for under-16s. Studies show that despite 75% of children having had an NHS eye test by year 7 in England, 80% have never had a colour vision test, so they and their families will not know what is wrong. It is a huge thing for parents not to be aware of. I ask that the Minister looks at that and refers to it in his summing up.
The hon. Member for Blaydon and the Colour Blind Awareness briefing mention the Equality Act 2010. Almost incredibly, the guidance notes on that Act are erroneous. They state that people
“unable to distinguish between red and green”
should not be considered to have a disability. There is no such medical condition. People with colour vision deficiencies have a lifelong, debilitating medical condition that cannot be rectified, which excludes them from much information provided in colour. Many colour combinations can cause challenges, not just reds and greens. Consequently, the business, education and sporting sectors mistakenly believe that they do not have to take into account the needs of colour-blind people. That error discourages colour-blind people from bringing a legal challenge when discriminated against. That is important, because the Equality Act is about equality, so they should be able to bring forward these discrimination challenges. We all know from our experience in this place that those challenges often affect the decisions made by Government. Reviews are carried out and mistakes are rectified.
Colour vision deficiency, or CVD, affects about one in 12 men and one in 200 women, and there are approximately 3 million colour-blind people in Britain—approximately 4.5% of our population. That could be a significant number of people who play sport. As we have already heard graphically from the hon. Member for Blaydon, who spoke about her young footballer constituent, sport is losing out on people who could achieve elite status, simply because needs related to their CVD are not met.
The hon. Member for Strangford talked about signage in football stadia and other places, although we are talking specifically about sport in this debate. I thank him and the hon. Member for Blaydon for raising that point. I will write to sportscotland to find out its take on this important issue. We are aware that there are differences across the four nations in how things are done, but I do not ever want to say, and I hope I never have, that everything in Scotland is perfect—it almost is, but not always.
I am aware that a lot of what I am saying is repetitive, but I make no apology for it. My first ever Chief Whip would say, “Marion, repetition is good. It gets your point out to your constituents and to people across the Chamber,” so I will carry on repeating stuff that has already been said. In Scotland, the Government are keen on sport for all. They have taken a number of actions and follow a number of guidelines. For example, sportscotland, which gets its money from the Scottish Government, follows the SCULPT framework for digital accessibility. Importantly, under that framework, one of the basic principles that should be considered when digital material is produced is its colour and contrast. That comes back to the point about people finding things difficult in football or sports stadiums when things are colour-coded. I will also write to the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Professional Football League and the premiership clubs on this issue.
Until the debate was announced, I had not considered this issue at all in my role as SNP disability spokesperson, so I have got more work out of this debate, which I am actually quite happy about. We cannot always make effective change here and now as a result of these debates, but we can speak to the relevant bodies and raise their awareness of issues. The hon. Member for Blaydon is good at pointing people in the right direction on various issues, so again I commend her for her work.
The Active Scotland outcomes framework describes the Scottish Government’s ambitions for sport and physical activity and commits to ensuring that everyone has opportunities to achieve, irrespective of disability. I will be speaking soon to Scottish Government Ministers, and will flag this issue. I cannot guarantee that I will be completely successful on it immediately, but I will keep plugging away. I understand the Minister is keen on responding to this sort of thing. Does he know which two stadia the previous speakers were talking about? If someone could let me know, I would be grateful. I will visit my local football club, Motherwell, and will be particularly interested in its signage. I do not know if the claret and amber cause difficulties for people with colour blindness, but I will find out as soon as I can.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg, and it is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) not just on securing the debate, but on her excellent speech, which set out all the issues and made some good asks of the Minister. As Members have said, she has been stalwart in raising awareness of the issue, and giving it a profile in Parliament, as she is doing today. The issue potentially impacts millions of people.
It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I did not know until today that the origin of his support for Leicester City was the 1969 FA cup final. As a lifelong Manchester City fan, that is one of my earliest memories, although it is a much happier memory for me than for him.
Colour vision deficiency or colour blindness affects many people in many different ways. One of the impacts is on their ability to participate and compete in, and watch, sport. Sport and physical activity are essential elements of a modern, healthy, thriving society. Participating in sport is important for physical and mental health and overall wellbeing. Watching sport helps connect communities, tackle loneliness and bring people together, as well as providing entertainment. Sport should be accessible and everyone should be able to enjoy it, no matter who they are. Unfortunately, for people who are colourblind, who face many challenges, this is not always the case.
The issue starts in school. Colour blindness is thought to affect around 450,000 schoolchildren in the UK. It can have real implications for their ability to learn and build confidence at school. Colour is often used as a tool for learning; for example, younger children use colouring-in sheets. Colour is used on maps and graphs. It is used to highlight information and make distinctions, particularly in school sport. We have heard the example of two teams wearing different coloured bibs in a school sports session. For a young person with difficulty differentiating between two colours, that can lead to their making mistakes or being slower to follow instructions, and it can knock their confidence and their ability to participate. Studies show that 80% of pupils get to year 7 without ever having had a colour vision test. I understand that school screening for colour blindness ended in 2009, and teachers are often not trained in how to identify and support colour-blind children.
It certainly seems that this lack of support and knowledge can impact negatively on participation in sport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon said, research by Oxford Brookes University on the comparative levels of involvement of colour-blind and non-colour-blind players suggests that 25% of colour-blind players are potentially being lost to the system. That is obviously a problem, particularly as levels of physical activity among the population are not where they should be. Disabled people are one of the groups whose activity levels have declined most sharply since the pandemic, and fewer than half of all children do the recommended amount of sport and physical activity. We need to remove barriers whenever we can.
The issue continues into professional sport. For colour-blind people who make it as professional athletes, the barriers continue. It is welcome that colour blindness guidance has been created by the Football Association and UEFA for football and by World Rugby, but to date there is no official published guidance on the subject from the other major sports. Even in football and rugby, there is low awareness among clubs and coaches. If there is not a proper focus on the subject, lots of the issues that affect sports and players, such as team kit colours or the colour of the ball, can cause issues.
A lack of consideration for colour vision deficiency can mean that players struggle to identify their team mates. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon gave a couple of examples; I will point to another. Matt Holland, the former Northern Ireland international, used to play for Charlton Athletic. On his debut for Charlton, they were playing away in Plymouth. Charlton were playing in red; Plymouth were playing in green. After a few minutes, Matt had to run over to the side of the pitch and say to the assistant manager, “I don’t know what I’m doing here; I can’t differentiate the teams.” He said that the assistant manager looked at him as if to say, “What on earth have we signed here as our new player?” He went on to have a very successful career. He is now working as a pundit, and continues to face similar issues.
If it is bad for players, think about the difficulties for referees. It is difficult anyway to get people through the barriers to becoming referees in sport, so we need to try to tackle this extra barrier. This issue also affects sports fans. We have heard about the kit clashes, which are a common occurrence and can make a match difficult to follow. That is particularly galling if someone has spent lots of money on tickets, travel or pay-per-view. Issues can also be caused by ticketing portals, which sometimes use colour to distinguish different seats’ pricing and availability. As we have heard, this is also an issue when it comes to stadium safety and security. Because of the use of colours, colour-blind people can struggle to understand way-finding information, pick out emergency signage or understand things such as allergen advice in catering outlets. In the whole UK, only two stadiums have been fully audited for colour blindness accessibility.
Ambiguity around colour blindness and the Equality Act means that people who are colour blind often do not get their needs taken into account. Colour Blind Awareness, the organisation advocating for people with colour blindness, feels that the guidance notes to the Equality Act 2010 are problematic. The guidance notes state that people who are unable to distinguish between red and green should not be considered to have a disability, but people with colour vision deficiency do have a lifelong, debilitating medical condition that cannot be rectified, and many colour combinations cause challenges, not just red and green.
Under the 2010 Act, a person is considered to have a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a “substantial and long-term” effect on their ability to manage normal everyday activities, but colour blindness is not specifically cited in the Act. The Government Equalities Office does recognise that colour blindness can be a disability in some instances, so I ask the Government to look at this. Will the Minister and his colleagues consider the arguments in favour of reviewing the Equality Act guidance, to ensure that it supports all people with visual impairments or colour vision deficiency?
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon made a number of excellent suggestions for actions to be taken, and I endorse them, because they raise questions about what more the Government can do to ensure that schools and sporting bodies from the grassroots to the professional better take into account the needs of colour-blind players, staff and fans. We need to break down every barrier to people getting active and enjoying sport in all its forms, and that includes for people with colour blindness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this important debate and thank Members for their contributions. There is a fair bit of cross-party consensus on this. I suppose I should, in a sense, come out: I am a member of the colour-blind community and understand the challenges that come with living with the condition. I have a bad case of it. I get colours like red, green, orange and brown confused, and I also get blues and purples confused. I remember being in school and having to draw a map of where we lived, and I coloured a river purple and got told off for doing so. I certainly understand many of the points that have been raised today about educating people about the impacts. I have sometimes come downstairs in the most shocking clothes with colours that clash appallingly, and I have struggled to get my socks in order.
The world around us is often designed for people with standard colour vision, and that can make everyday tasks and activities much more difficult. The hon. Member for Blaydon raised the issue of the different political party colours at the election. I had to be very careful when designing my leaflets that I did not make them purple rather than blue, for fear of being confused with a UKIP candidate; I would not have wanted that.
The Government believe that opportunities to play sport and be physically active should be available to everyone, but we recognise that there are barriers that prevent some people from taking part. I can assure hon. Members that we will continue to work with the sports sector to tackle those barriers. That is an area of high importance to me as the Sports Minister, because I believe that it is our responsibility to ensure that everyone has equal opportunities to participate in sport, regardless of their abilities.
As we have heard from a number of colleagues, the statistics are that in the UK one in 12 males and one in 200 females have some form of colour blindness. That means that in many team sports, such as football, rugby and cricket, at least one player in every male squad is likely to be colour blind. This condition can affect athletes’ development and performance at every level. The disadvantages that colour-blind athletes face obviously vary from sport to sport. As we have heard, in team sports, the colours of strips can be difficult to distinguish between. Team training presents similar challenges when different coloured cones are used. The hon. Member for Blaydon rightly pointed out—indeed, it was heart-warming to hear—the account from Marcus Wells where he talked about the different coloured cones and bibs for drills or games.
In canoeing, a colour-blind competitor might find it difficult to distinguish between the red and green gate markings that indicate the direction in which to pass through a gate. In cricket, the red balls can be difficult to pick out against a green background, even if the player is standing almost on top of the ball. I struggle with this personally, having always found it difficult to tell the difference between the colours of the balls while watching snooker. I often use that as an excuse for how bad a player I am, but I do recognise the issues.
Of course, it is not just those taking part in sport who are affected; it is, as hon. Members have said, the spectators too. Close to 3 million people have colour vision deficiency in the UK, and kit clashes in team games are an increasing concern. That is where, as we have heard, two teams wear colours that appear to blend into each other if someone has colour vision deficiency. There are many examples of games with clashing kits. Last season, in both legs of the League One play-off semi-final between Sunderland and Sheffield Wednesday, there were problematic clashes for colour-blind people. When there is a kit-clash game, large numbers of people could be affected.
Football fans have spoken out—we have heard today a number of accounts—on other struggles and highlighted the fact that it is hard to tell a red card from a yellow card. What is more, some fans say that they did not realise—I am one of these people—that a substitution board had different colours to show which player was coming on and which was coming off; some have even said that they could not see the numbers at all. As we have heard, fans with colour blindness arriving at stadiums and grounds to support their teams can also find it challenging if way-finding information is colour-coded.
The Sports Grounds Safety Authority guide highlights various challenges that venues need to consider, such as when information is conveyed solely by colour or when a plain high-visibility jacket is used to show that someone is a steward. Adding the word “steward” to those jackets is a simple solution that helps to improve the safety of all fans. I can commit to hon. Members today that I will happily raise this in my next meeting with the SGSA, because safety is a high priority for us. As I have said, it is sometimes very difficult if signs have red backgrounds and green lettering. I say to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who spoke for the SNP, that I do not quite have the information to hand yet on the two stadiums, but I will be more than happy to get that information for her and pass it on.
It is important to note that some good work is being done to help to tackle these issues. I welcome the English Football League’s decision to allow clubs to wear away kits at home games next season to aid colour-blind people in differentiating teams. That will benefit players, staff, officials and spectators. By allowing a home club to wear its away kit or third kit to avoid a kit clash, that organisation is making it easier to differentiate between the two teams, and in turn helping to make football inclusive for all. But I will be more than happy to do what hon. Members have asked me to do and continue to raise these issues with the FA and, indeed, with other governing bodies.
Another example in football is that of Stoke City, which ahead of this season made a number of retail changes around its new kit launch in order to assist colour-blind fans with their shopping experience. The club has renamed its replica kit items by adding a description of the colour on to all labels. That simple change makes it easier for colour-blind people to support their club how they want.
In cricket, there has been ongoing research into how pink balls have affected colour-blind cricketers. Actions taken from the results include changing the stitching on the ball to black to help make it stand out against surrounding colours.
World Rugby has also made changes to make the sport inclusive to those with colour vision deficiency. It consulted on proposed new laws that would be introduced for the men’s 2027 rugby world cup. The proposed changes would see international teams wearing different shirts in situations that present a red-green clash.
There is also a collaborative partnership called Tackling Colour Blindness in Sport, which has been doing great work investigating the prevalence of colour blindness in professional sport. Although its primary focus is on football, it aims to identify any barriers to progression for colour-blind players as well as strategies to overcome them. We have heard a lot today about Colour Blind Awareness, which has worked with many sports and organisations, including the Football Association and UEFA, helping them to develop the first guidance document for football.
The Government’s aim is to create an inclusive and diverse sports sector for all. That means sports should take into account the diversity of their players, spectators and workforce. We are currently working on the cross-Government sports strategy, and I want to ensure that inclusion features heavily. Hon. Members have raised a number of issues that stretch across other Departments, such as the Department for Education. We are working towards equal access for PE, and it is important to identify these issues early on.
I was fortunate to have the colour blindness test at school. I remember the coloured dots, where we had to read the number inside the dots. Because of my colour blindness, I could never find the number, and I thought I was just looking at pretty patterns. Identifying the issue early on makes everything easier.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) raised an important point about seating plans when people are trying to buy tickets. I never go on those sites—I have to get someone else to do it for me, because I cannot work out which seats have been sold and which are available, because of the use of colours.
I have a departmental role in terms of the Equality Act. I will have a look at the issues and see what can be considered, although I make no promises.
I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon for securing the debate, and all other Members for their contributions in highlighting this important issue. Everyone should have the chance to watch, play and enjoy sport. The Government will continue to work with stakeholders to make sport in England as inclusive as possible. As a colour blindness sufferer myself, I know acutely how challenging it can be. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the issue further.
Liz Twist
I thank all Members who have taken part today. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is always so supportive in pursuing these issues. He spoke very well about stadium safety, as well as the practical aspects. I thank him for his contribution.
I thank the two Front-Bench spokespeople—the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith)—and the Minister for their responses. This is one of those debates where everyone knows there is an issue and everyone is looking to do the best thing, but we just need to do some more.
I thank the Minister for telling us about his personal experience of having colour blindness, and the practical difficulties it entails; I thank him for saying that he will continue to pursue the issues, especially through the sports strategy. He raised an important point about PE in schools, where there is that intersection between sport and education.
People who suffer from colour blindness face very real difficulties. There may be good anecdotes, but those people face real difficulties in their lives, not just in sport. It is good to hear that sport is, in some ways, leading the way in tackling the issues, but we need to make sure that the broader issues are picked up as well. I thank the Minister for agreeing to raise this matter through the broader sports strategy.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered access to sport for people with colour blindness.
Mental Health and Wellbeing Plan
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I will call Kevan Jones to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the mental health and wellbeing plan.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
It is now 11 years since there was a major debate in Parliament on mental illness, when I and many other hon. Members spoke about their own experiences. That debate changed attitudes in this place towards mental illness and wellbeing, and both the press and members of the public have made great strides in being able to speak about mental health. We also now have members of the royal family speaking about their own mental illness, and it is heartening to see the Prince of Wales taking mental health and wellbeing as one of their charity initiatives. Unfortunately, however, there is still a lot of progress to be made in delivering timely treatment, particularly prevention and early intervention.
In England, the numbers speak for themselves. Around 1.7 million people are in contact with mental health services, and according to NHS England’s monthly statistic dashboard, 26,000 of them are occupying hospital beds or have a hospital bed open to them. We have also seen severe pressures on ambulance services and the police due to people in mental health crisis asking for help. However, according to the National Audit Office, there could be around 8 million people with mental health needs that are not currently being met by mental health services.
I am sure the Minister will tell us shortly that the Government are delivering record levels of investment in mental health services, but according to research by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, almost a quarter of people are waiting more than 12 weeks for any form of treatment. Some 43% of mental health patients say that longer waiting times make their conditions worse, and 78% resort to attending A&E because they cannot access services. I am sorry, but that is unacceptable. It shows that despite the amount of money going into mental health—I would argue that there needs to be more—much more needs to be done on prevention. We need a joined-up approach across Government to reduce the demand on services and to get people more timely treatment and intervention.
That is why I welcomed the Government’s announcement of the development of a cross-departmental 10-year mental health and wellbeing plan last year, and it was also broadly welcomed by everyone in the mental health sphere, including many charities. It was launched with a great fanfare of publicity as a major initiative by the Government, who said at the time of the launch that
“now is the right time to think about bold, long-term actions to build the mentally healthy society that we want to see in 10 years’ time.”
The then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), said that
“our new 10-year plan will set an ambitious agenda for where we want the mental health of our nation to be in a decade’s time.”
Over 5,200 individuals, organisations and stakeholders responded to the discussion paper. Charities such as Mind said that a truly cross-Government plan will play a key role in making sure that support for our mental health starts to rebuild, post pandemic, to the same level as our physical health, so it was a bit of a shock when the 10-year plan was quietly scrapped in January this year. Instead, the Government say that mental health will be addressed in their major conditions strategy. As I have already stated, it is clear from the number of people requiring interventions that mental health should be included in any such strategy.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I completely concur with his concern. There is a challenge. We know we are very interconnected beings, and our mental health and physical health are joined up. If we do not provide the focus required around mental health, it can get subsumed into other priorities, with mental health not having its day, its funding or real impact.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the consultation and the enthusiasm of the respondents. YoungMinds, a great organisation dealing with young people’s mental health, had 14,000 young people commenting as part of that consultation. Is he as concerned as I am that their views will now be lost and that they will be dispirited?
Mr Jones
I congratulate YoungMinds on its great work. It is disappointing that many of those people will feel let down, that their perfectly legitimate concerns around the mental health of young people will not be taken into consideration in a broader strategy. I will come on to that, but I would like to make some progress.
The major conditions strategy covers cardiovascular disease, including stroke, respiratory disease, musculoskeletal disorders, dementia, and cancer. Those are some of the most challenging areas that face the NHS. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) just mentioned, much has been said about parity of esteem between mental and physical health. I am a passionate believer; I believe that the integrated whole approach is right and should be our aim. However, a co-ordinated approach does not simply scrap the plan for mental health and wellbeing, if that means, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central just outlined, that those will not actually be taken up or given the priority that they need.
If anything, trying to create change across a vast swathe of health in one strategy could risk dealing with none of the challenges that are faced in those different areas.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. One of my concerns, which I suspect he has along with others, is for those with eating disorders, which is clearly a mental health and physical issue. Across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there are 700,000 young people with eating disorders. That is not a core part of the Government’s plan, but it needs to be. Does he agree that eating disorders have to be key and core to any strategy addressing mental health and physical health?
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Jones
Give me two minutes to make some progress. There are two issues that I want to highlight, which will fall through the cracks without dedicated attention. That is tackling disparities, and the mental health of children and young people, just raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In the original plan for the 10-year strategy, the Government spoke about tackling enhanced disparities. They said:
“Addressing disparities will be a key aim across the whole of the mental health plan—from prevention through to early intervention and treatment.”
Daniel Kawczynski
The right hon. Gentleman is talking about young people. We would all concur that additional support for young people with mental health issues is extremely important. Does he agree that emotional intelligence support for young people is related to this? Does he agree that more emotional intelligence should be taught in schools, to help people through with their mental wellbeing?
Mr Jones
Personally, I would not call it emotional intelligence; I would call it emotional robustness and I will come on to say more about that. However, the hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of trying to make sure that young people are as robust as possible in dealing with the situations that face them now in modern life.
The discussion paper for the 10-year plan mentioned no fewer than 18 disparity factors relating to mental health, including financial insecurity, discrimination, the criminal justice system, poor quality of work or employment, living standards—the list goes on. It is important to acknowledge those factors, because the Government themselves said that they needed to be addressed in mental health and wellbeing plan. Colleagues will know that I have often been on the record saying that the way to tackle mental health and wellbeing is to make sure that we hardwire into Government policy consideration of mental health and resilience across Departments. That is why I welcomed the approach in the plan.
However, building consideration of mental health into a major conditions strategy means that only one disparity factor is likely to be taken into consideration, which is physical health. Many other disparity factors, which are often complex, obviously relate to people’s wellbeing, but I fear they will be sidelined in the strategy.
Let us just take one of those other disparity factors, which is financial insecurity. According to the Office for National Statistics last autumn, around one in six adults experienced moderate or severe depressive symptoms. That increased to one in four for those who find it difficult to pay energy bills, or rent or mortgage payments. And according to a YouGov poll for Barnardo’s, almost a third of parents said that children’s mental health has worsened during the cost of living crisis.
We know that the effect of wellbeing on health includes its effect on mental health, which is substantial. This was such a key priority for the Government that they outlined its importance in their levelling-up agenda. The levelling up White Paper said that
“wellbeing has a bearing on all four of the UK Government’s objectives for levelling up”.
The 10-year plan discussion paper specifically said that
“a new plan for mental health is needed to deliver the Government’s levelling up mission to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy between local areas”.
However, we now have no mental health 10-year plan, so where does that leave those good words that were in the levelling up White Paper?
We also need early intervention and prevention, which are so important. We know for a fact that around 50% of mental health conditions are established by the time that a child reaches the age of 14 and 75% of them are established by the time someone is 24. However, it is estimated that 60% of children and young people who have diagnosable mental health conditions currently do not receive NHS care. I share the very valid concerns raised by mental health charities and others that scrapping the 10-year plan and merging mental health into the major conditions strategy means that the people who will be at most risk will be children and young people, who are less likely to have chronic physical health conditions, but are most likely to benefit from early intervention, for example counselling or psychotherapy.
I have spoken before about the importance of making sure that we get children and young people’s mental health right. Rates of probable mental health disorders in children aged between six and 16 have risen from 11.6% in 2017 to 18% in 2022. That equates to one in six children aged between six and 16 having a probable mental health condition. And as has already been mentioned, 700,000 children have accessed mental health services in the last 12 months.
Rachael Maskell
The Government need to take on board the important point that addressing the scale of mental health challenges in young people will not just be about health and looking at that major conditions strategy and how it interrelates with other health conditions, but about looking at what society offers, such as the education system, the digital community and so much more, which put so much pressure on young people. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why we need this focus?
Mr Jones
That was the beauty of the 10-year plan; it was going to do that.
Coming back to children’s and young people’s mental health, referrals have increased according to the Children’s Commissioner, but waiting times are growing and fewer children are receiving treatment. We need universal access to counselling for children, which we do not have at the moment. That is why I support providing special mental health support in every school. I stress that schools are not islands, separate from their communities. We also need clear links between the support given there and in the community.
I have already spoken about having a joined-up approach to mental health, but there is another issue: to use a Bill Clinton quote, “It’s the economy, stupid.” If media reports are correct, the Chancellor will stand up later today to deliver what he is calling a back-to-work Budget, but unless we take proper joined-up action on mental health, any ambitions he announces today will not be achieved. Adults with mental health conditions are more likely to be out of work or in lower paid work. The total annual cost to the Government is estimated to be between £24 billion and £27 billion a year, and the overall loss to the economy to be between £70 billion and £100 billion. That is money people could contribute to our economy, so this is not just about people’s wellbeing, but about ensuring the economy benefits from good mental health and wellbeing.
England is the only nation in the UK that does not have a 10-year plan. The Government’s current approach of scrapping the previous 10-year plan risks, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said, sidelining mental health and short-changing future funding and policy decisions. It shows the lack of a coherent focus and risks losing the momentum that has been built over the past few years in mental health and wellbeing. Whether it is tackling disparities and the many complex drivers of mental health, or pursuing prevention and early intervention in children’s mental health, long-term planning is desperately needed in this sector. I cannot understand why the Government have put this to one side.
As I said last year to mark the 10th anniversary of speaking about my own mental health in the House of Commons, we need a dedicated public health strategy for dealing with mental health and wellbeing. We need a mental health strategy that is hard-wired into not just the Department of Health and Social Care, but every single Department and into local government. When the Government launched their paper for a dedicated 10-year plan on mental health and wellbeing last year, they said to
“challenge us to be ambitious”.
I am urging the Minister today to be ambitious.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for bringing forward the debate and for all his work in this space. He is absolutely right that mental health affects us all, and for those who have a poor experience with mental health the impacts can be life-changing. He is also right that debates in this place have broken taboos and challenged stigmas around mental health, and have helped with the national conversation about mental health and why it is so important. In one sense, I violently agree with all that he said. The difference is about how we get to that place where we are looking at mental health, rather than just mental illness, and treating people sooner when they need help and support.
I believe that in the last 10 years we have seen a seismic shift in the way that we look at mental health—a shift to parity with physical health, and towards early intervention and community support, rather than waiting for someone to reach a crisis and then intervening. It has been a shift to look at mental health as well as mental illness; the two are very different, but support each other. If we get mental health right, we are much more likely to deal better with mental illness. Parity between mental health and physical health is why the major conditions strategy has mental health in it.
Huge progress is being made. We have committed to funding increases each year, from almost £11 billion in 2015 to £15 billion in the current financial year. Such a level of funding has not been seen in mental health services before, and it is making a difference. The additional £2.3 billion a year to transform mental health services in England has the aim of getting in as early as possible when people need help, and moving to community mental health services as the first port of call for people who need support.
I have seen in practice the difference that the funding and change of emphasis are making. I recently visited Hammersmith and Fulham Mental Health Unit, where community and in-patient mental health teams are working together. If someone is struggling in the community they get input from the in-patient setting, and, when someone is an in-patient, the community team are making sure they are getting the help and support they need for discharge. It is working extremely well.
I have met with police chiefs and talked about the Humberside model, which means that patients are not being taken to A&E or police cells as a first point of refuge, but are instead seen by community support teams. That frees up police time, and is a better experience for patients to quickly receive more appropriate care. That would not have been possible 10 years ago. Of course, there is work to be done, and we get huge numbers of patients who need services and want referrals, but a huge amount of progress has been made.
We recently announced £150 million to support crisis centres in local communities up and down England, so that someone who is not well has easier access to teams and support. Up to 90 mental health ambulances are being rolled out, which means that if someone is going into crisis, it is a mental health support team that responds to them, and not necessarily a paramedic, who would normally be the first responder. That is making a difference, keeping people out of hospital and making sure they are getting the right support as quickly as possible.
Daniel Kawczynski
The Minister will recall a conversation we had some time ago, when I was very keen for her to meet a constituent of mine from Shrewsbury who has a daughter experiencing mental health problems. They are not happy with the level of service we receive in Shropshire. I hope the Minister will commit to meet my constituent.
Maria Caulfield
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend’s constituent.
Record numbers of patients are coming forward, both through referrals and via GPs. The consequence of breaking stigmas and taboos and encouraging people to come forward early is that more people want to use the system, so it is taking longer than we would hope for them to be seen. The situation is the same in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; it is not just something that England faces, which is why we are focused on increasing funding and resources. We are recruiting 27,000 additional mental health staff, and we are on track to deliver much of that in terms of support staff that are already in place.
We are also putting mental health support teams in schools. There are 287 mental health teams in place, covering 4,700 schools and colleges. They are not only helping young people who are struggling, but normalising mental health and making it as important as physical health. We teach young people about their physical health in schools—how to look after it and look for signs and symptoms of concern—but we have not done that in the past with mental health. Mental health support teams will normalise the idea that mental health wellbeing is as important as physical health wellbeing.
It is an achievement that in the major conditions strategy, mental health is on a par with other major conditions in the strategy. We cannot see patients just as people who have mental health needs, or who are suffering with a mental health illness. More than one in four patients who have mental health conditions have two or more long-term conditions, and 30% of people with a long-term physical health issue will also have a mental health problem. We cannot treat problems in isolation—seeing the individual as a cancer patient, a heart disease patient or a mental health patient. People are complex and have multiple issues.
By putting mental health in the major conditions strategy, we are matching what NHS England is doing with its Core20PLUS5 strategy. The right hon. Member for North Durham talked about inequalities. That is exactly what Core20PLUS5 does: it looks at the 20% of the population who are the most deprived and struggling the most with all their health needs, both physical and mental, and drills down into the five conditions that drive those inequalities, of which mental health is one. The major conditions strategy will mirror exactly what NHS England is doing.
Mr Kevan Jones
Will the Minister comment on the 5,200 responses to the discussion paper and the issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) about groups that fed into the discussion paper? How will that work, and how will charities and people in the sector be able to feed into the new strategy?
Maria Caulfield
I am not one for reinventing the wheel. Consultation work has been done, and we received a significant response. The hon. Member for Blaydon is right to point out groups such as YoungMinds, who will be in Parliament next week—I hope to meet them to follow up discussions. We will publish the previous call for evidence this spring, because we want to use that work to navigate and develop the mental health part of the major conditions strategy. This is not about undoing the work that was done before; it is about including it with physical illness. Over a third of people with severe symptoms of common mental health disorders also report a chronic physical condition, compared with a quarter of those with no or fewer symptoms of a common mental health disorder. Physical and mental health are very much interlinked, and to address one without the other would be to do a disservice to those patients.
Rachael Maskell
I am glad that the Minister has talked about parity of esteem, but only 8.6% of the health budget is spent on mental health. I hope that we will see a real uplift in funding for and investment in people’s mental health. Will the Minister set out the timeline for the publication of the strategy? It feels like the can is being kicked down the road.
Maria Caulfield
For the mental health perspective, which is the area that I work on, we will publish the previous consultation responses this spring—in the forthcoming weeks. That will feed into the development of the mental health aspect of the major conditions strategy, which we want to publish very soon. We also have the suicide prevention strategy, which will be a stand-alone strategy that will dovetail into that as well. There are record levels of funding for mental health. I am sure that more will be required, but it is not just about the amount of money; it is about how we spend it. We want to deliver on mental health ambulances, crisis centres and community support. We want to get in as early as possible.
I hope that I have been able to reassure hon. and right hon. Members that, just because this is not a standalone mental health strategy, that does not mean that we are reducing elements of the work that has gone before. It is so important to include it with those other major conditions, which is exactly what NHS England is doing with its Core20PLUS5 strategy to reduce inequalities. We hope to do the same with our strategy.
Question put and agreed to.
Shellfish Aquaculture
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered shellfish aquaculture.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. As treasurer of the all-party parliamentary group for shellfish aquaculture, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak up for shellfish aquaculture across the United Kingdom and the businesses linked to it.
I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that the UK’s aquaculture sector has long been overlooked and undervalued. A quick comparative glance at the various European oyster, mussels or scallop farms versus those of the UK shows that we are behind the curve in size and scale. Such a lackadaisical approach to aquaculture has dulled confidence in the industry and seen successive Governments fail to recognise the true potential of harnessing, working and using our coastal waters. If done right, we can help to create tremendous opportunities along the UK’s coastline and address some of the very real issues outlined in Professor Chris Whitty’s report on health and wellbeing in coastal communities, as well as countless reports on the aquaculture sector.
In accepting that more needs to be done and by addressing the bureaucratic red tape, improving our relationship with our friends and neighbours in Europe and ensuring the regulatory environment is a help, not a hindrance, we can create more jobs, boost local economies, support coastal communities, protect the marine environment and even enhance our coastal waters and play a part in sequestering carbon dioxide, as well as creating a sustainable food source that relies on little to no chemicals and addressing our food security concerns. Yet those successes are dependent on us changing our approach.
In the past seven years, UK mussel production has decreased by 60%—by 99% in Wales. In the past three years, UK oyster production has declined by nearly a third. That decline comes despite the Government’s best efforts to help through the fisheries and seafood scheme and countless other funds and initiatives that have been put in place over the past few years.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the woeful lack of attention received by the sector, which is important for communities such as the ones that I represent. Can I suggest that what we really need is Government and Governments who operate in the same direction? At the moment in Shetland, we have the Shellvolution project, which brings £4.4 million to develop low-carbon, sustainable mussel farming—something that is good for the whole of Scotland—and is funded by both the UK and Scottish Governments. At the same time, we have a consultation on highly protected marine areas that is focused almost exclusively on inshore waters, which was today described to me by a local businessman in Shetland as an existential threat to the industry.
Anthony Mangnall
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know how hard he works on behalf of the aquaculture businesses in his area, but also that he sees the wider picture across the United Kingdom. He is absolutely right about the spatial squeeze that is closing out our fishermen and aquaculture businesses. I suspect that this will not be much of a debate; it may just be a moment of violent agreement across the House to talk about how we can work together to find a collaborative approach that allows us to grow the sector and bring enormous benefits to our coastal communities, and indeed to the sector itself. The right hon. Gentleman will find no disagreement with me on this matter and I will certainly come on to that point later on.
We need to change our approach to address the decline and recognise that we must be fleet of foot to not just save the sector, but build it up, develop it and let it become the success that we all know it can be. With the Windsor framework almost agreed, it should not be wrong to expect an improved relationship between the UK and Europe. If that is the case, we can rightly expect to take advantage of this situation and see to it that sectors that are so readily dependent on close-to-home export markets have the opportunity to address some of the problems they have experienced both at home and abroad.
I will point to specific examples both at home and abroad of where I believe we can take the necessary steps to help our aquaculture sector enormously. As a representative of south Devon, with one of the finest coastlines, I can tell you, Ms Elliott, that there are few delights as good as fresh oysters and a pint of Guinness. In fact, I invite you and the Minister down to south Devon, and, even more, I shall pay for lunch—I don’t know if this counts as bribery—to welcome you down any time you like to experience such a delectable combination.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
What about the rest of us?
Anthony Mangnall
The Chair of the International Trade Committee is more than welcome to come as well. On the basis of cross-party co-operation I am happy to invite the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), as well. However, this lunch, which is rapidly becoming more expensive for me, is conditional on addressing the problems facing the mighty Pacific oyster. For over 100 years, the Pacific oyster has existed in our coastal waters. In fact, in the 1960s, to mitigate the inability to farm many native species in certain parts of the United Kingdom, the Government reintroduced Pacific oysters to help expand and cultivate the aquaculture sector, so that we could grow a proper aquaculture industry.
The lack of clarity around the status of the Pacific oyster has held back the ability to farm it and benefit from its presence in our waters. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been absolutely clear in correspondence to me and the chairman of the shellfish aquaculture all-party group, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), that there is no doubt that Pacific oysters are a non-native species. We do not disagree with that point. However, given the prevalence of Pacific oysters, and the almost indisputable presumption that we will not be able to rid them from our waters, it is surely time for DEFRA to recognise that the Pacific oyster has become naturalised to the UK environment.
It is worth pointing out, but I am happy to be corrected on this, that in the guidance on section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, paragraph 18 states:
“A species would be considered to be ‘in a wild state’ where the population lives and fends for itself in the wild.”
If we were not farming them, those Pacific oysters would continue to exist in our waterways. Why not take advantage of what we have?
As the Minister knows, DEFRA has moved positively for those farming Pacific oysters south of the 52nd parallel. However, for those north of the line of latitude, the future looks desperate if not deathly. One only needs to consider the issues with Lindisfarne Oysters, which has been restricted from expanding by Natural England. North or south, east or west, the future of the industry is still in jeopardy because we are failing to be clear about the status of Pacific oysters in our waters.
The knock-on impact of the issue is that shoreline owners stop supporting the sector. I will give the very specific example of the Duchy of Cornwall, which has decided to phase out all Pacific oyster farms over the next two to three years on sites where they exist. It says the reason is that Pacific oysters remain classified as non-native and invasive. That decision alone will close three to four businesses in my constituency, and impact hundreds more across the country. It will also provide an example for other shoreline owners.
To compound the problem, Natural England has already issued advice to Natura 2000 sites, saying that it believes that,
“there should be no new pacific oyster farms and no expansion of existing ones should be allowed”.
Stopping the farming of Pacific oysters will not reduce or eradicate their presence in our waters, so why are we not taking advantage of the chance to build up the sector? To use comparative figures, the UK produces in the region of 3,000 tonnes of oysters while France produces 145,000—95% of which are Pacific oysters.
An hon. Lady from Cornwall—whose constituency I have totally forgotten—cannot be here but would make the point that in parts of Cornwall they do not want Pacific oysters to be introduced. It is important to put on record that the oyster farmers of Cornwall take a different approach.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
As a neighbouring MP to Truro and Falmouth, which is the constituency my hon. Friend was seeking, I know that there is a wild native oyster fishery in that area. When it comes to the Pacific oyster, my understanding from my dealings while I was Secretary of State and Minister in this area is that there is an acceptance of triploid oysters, which are sterile and thus less likely to spread and have an impact. Is my hon. Friend aware that his constituents and businesses could use triploid oysters?
Anthony Mangnall
I am, and I am also particularly grateful for the work my right hon. Friend did during his time as Secretary of State for DEFRA. I thank him for reminding me about the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), and for putting on the record what his oyster community is talking about.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, but in parts of south Devon triploids do not work as well as Pacific oysters, and farmers there have a tried and tested method. That is where we have to be careful about the language we use. At the moment the language used by DEFRA is holding back the sector. It is not about saying that Pacific oysters are right for everywhere, but recognising that, where they already exist, there is a chance for us to create a community and an industry that could grow, develop and rival the size of France’s industry.
We are at odds with European countries, many of which have long since stopped trying to eradicate Pacific oysters and have accepted that they are fully resident and compatible. To avoid choking the industry out of existence, we need to look at how we can support and grow the Pacific oyster sector. That can be achieved in three rather quick ways.
The first is to create a new national policy that takes a realistic, pragmatic and holistic approach to the species and the benefits it can bring not just to biodiversity, but through a social and economic impact on coastal communities. We must question, even push back, against the all-too-often precautionary approach of Natural England. DEFRA, through the Minister, should use this new era—dawn, start, beginning, whatever we want to call it—to create an environment that returns the sector to its previous size, and to develop it.
Pacific oysters are only part of the aquaculture jigsaw. The export of live bivalve molluscs is also of the utmost importance. The changing relationship with the European Union has meant that the export of shellfish from class B waters has become far more complicated. Before we go into the weeds on that, I want to pay tribute to the Food Standards Agency for its work and co-operation with the sector in helping to prioritise and implement improvements to UK classification protocols. Since 2021, in England and Wales, class A areas of water have increased from 26 to 40, and seasonal class areas from 19 to 27. That is a significant improvement that should be welcomed.
I want to put on record my thanks to the Food Standards Agency, which has done so much to co-operate and engage with the APPG and my shellfish community, but significant improvement does not mean job done. Our attention must be directed towards creating stability and as much certainty as possible. Within the trade and co-operation agreement there are 18 specialised committees. Two of those, on sanitary and phytosanitary measures and on fisheries, are the conduit—the mechanism—for both sides to address grievances and technical issues, as well as to find solutions and harness improved trade and agreement between parties.
However, like most EU structures, they can be cumbersome and bureaucratic. The SC on fisheries has met only five times since 2020, and the committee on sanitary and phytosanitary measures has met only twice. Progress through those committees can be sped up. I politely ask the Minister to put his weight behind that request, and to raise the matter with his EU counterparts. Resolving trade frictions can be achieved through expedited measures. Although the SCs are a valuable avenue, they are by no means the only route to take.
Sort out the trade flows and we can reach new markets, and grow our oyster, mussel, scallop and clam markets far beyond their current levels. Engagement with our friends and neighbours can be only part of the strategy. We also need to look closer to home for what we can do. As already mentioned, the changing relationship with our neighbours has had an impact on trade flows, but our domestic legislation plays a significant role in holding back the growth of the sector, particularly the classification of harvesting waters.
The Minister will be aware of the Seafish report, “Review of the application of the Official Control Regulations for shellfish production as they relate to microbial contamination”. Once we are past that rather tricky title, it is a fascinating report comparing UK and European standards. The purpose of the report was to review the
“application of official controls across different EU member states and to identify the areas of deviation and flexibility that may exist.”
Bearing in mind that the United Kingdom wrote the rules when we were in the European Union, it should be a cause of concern to see other countries take a more flexible and agile approach to those rules. The report goes into forensic detail. In a response to a letter from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, the Food Standards Agency said, in relation to that Seafish report, that it had
“prioritised working on improvements based on several proposals from the report such as: application of different tasting methods for classification results; use of industry sampling as part of official sampling records; reviewing the timeframe for reopening sites after high results; reviewing the relationship between investigative sampling results and the classification record.”
What correspondence has the Minister had with the FSA about the Seafish report? Is he able to share that with the House or put it in the House of Commons Library? Is there an update on the FSA’s progress on those points? It is fantastically good to hear that it is willing to look at the report and act on the recommendations, but we need an update, because many businesses have been waiting far too long.
All businesses in the sector—and all businesses generally—need certainty and stability. The comparisons and recommendations put forward by Seafish would go a long way to creating an environment of stability, thereby attracting investment and opportunities for the sector. The four proposals would not put us out of line or in contention with other countries in Europe. Indeed, they might see us become more aligned with many of their practices. Given that we now sit outside the EU and can act on a unilateral basis, I ask the Minister to push through the proposals as quickly as possible. Implementing the measures will not put at risk our harvest or humans consuming live bivalve molluscs, but will at least make the sector more flexible and able to respond to circumstances that are often beyond its control.
While changing the regulation and testing methodology can help, there is no substitute for simply improving our water quality. Despite some Opposition mischief and misdirection, I am hugely proud to have voted in support of the Government’s landmark policies to help clean up our rivers and coastal waters. Our Victorian-era network is creaking under ever more pressure from development and age, but our new laws have pushed water companies to invest a further £56 billion over the next 27 years and have set actionable targets that are punishable with hefty fines if not met. Those measures, without raising the costs on households, are set to bring our water network up to speed and ensure that waste water and sewage management plans are adhered to and delivered so that the public can have faith in our water companies to do what is right.
Through not just the Environment Act 2021 but the Agriculture Act 2020 and environmental land management schemes, we can help change habits to improve the quality of our waterways. If we bring farmers and fishermen together, they can help one another understand how what happens on land can have a huge impact on water quality far off the coast, impacting many aquaculture farms. Joining land and sea-based businesses in common cause and understanding will help improve biodiversity and protect our landscape and seascape for future generations.
I have several businesses in Totnes and south Devon in the aquaculture space, but the reality is I should have hundreds more. Perhaps the most effective case study is Offshore Shellfish—the largest mussel farm in the UK and, soon, Europe. Based out of Brixham and operating in Lyme Bay, it is an extraordinary success, despite immeasurable challenging circumstances facing the sector. In succeeding, it demonstrates just how much potential there is in the aquaculture sector. Offshore Shellfish has pioneered blue offshore food production and, in doing so, has been recognised internationally as being technically, scientifically and commercially 10 years ahead of any competitor in Europe. Indeed, it has already been contacted by the Dutch, the French, the Germans and the Irish to run trials and pilot schemes, showing just how viable and brilliant its model is and how brilliant British innovation in the sector can be. However, to attract long-term investors, the Holmyard family, who run that extraordinary company, need to be able to reassure investors about stable access to markets, strong and comparable testing regimes, good trade flows and clean waters.
My asks are perfectly simple. They are those of the APPG for shellfish aquaculture, so they are not new, but they come with a warning: failure to act now will condemn the sector. The Minister has the powers, ability and understanding to make the necessary changes. At the end of this not quite Chancellor-esque lengthy speech, I hope he will take the opportunity to take advantage of our new-found freedoms, use the agility of not having to consult 27 other countries and change our rules and regulations to unlock the huge potential of the sector. If he does, not only will he be a champion of the aquaculture sector—I know flattery gets you everywhere in this place—but he will effectively and meaningfully go a long way to help coastal communities level up, without having to use Government resources. The potential is there. The opportunity is there. I know how hard the Minister works on the issue, so I look forward to working with him.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me in this important debate, Ms Elliott. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for introducing it. I will be taking a slightly different tack from him, because I represent Huddersfield —as you know, Ms Elliott—and the last anyone looked, it is not on the coast. I also chair Thames Renaissance, and although Huddersfield is not on the Thames either, I was born in Sunbury-on-Thames, and I went to Hampton School, which is on the Thames, and the London School of Economics, which is also on the Thames, so I have some credentials when it comes to water.
I also regularly visit coastal resorts such as Whitby in Yorkshire and Whitstable. They are both favourites of mine because they are places where people can enjoy the most wonderful surrounding countryside and the beautiful fishing that goes on there. Historically, people could also buy fresh fish, lobsters, crab, oysters and mussels in both resorts, take them home and have an absolutely brilliant feast made from something that is produced in our seas.
The reason I am speaking in this debate is that I am increasingly concerned that it is no longer possible to get fresh fish in Whitby or Whitstable. Mysteriously, it is no longer on sale, and neither are crabs. Indeed, the notices in those two resorts will say: “Everything here is imported”—all the crabs, all the oysters; everything. There is something really strange going on, and if I ask the restaurants that I have been going to for years, they say, “Oh, something’s gone wrong, guv’nor,” or maybe, “The sea’s warmed up.”
There is a real worry that something is going on in our seas and oceans, and I am particularly concerned. I have been interested in the marine environment for all of the 40-odd years I have been in Parliament. It is so essential, and I want to share with the Chamber something that really triggered my decision to be here. I also chair the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality, which was taking evidence on air quality when suddenly one of the scientists said, “You know, a lot of nasty stuff comes off tyres and goes into the air, but the real pollution is what comes off tyres, stays on the road, and is washed into the gullies and ditches, and then into the streams and into the rivers and oceans.” He said that most people think that tyres are made of rubber. There is some rubber, but there are also 32 chemicals in the average tyre. Those 32 chemicals are very sophisticated, some of them are very related to cancer, and all over the globe—not just around our coast—they are flowing into the seas and the marine environment.
As Members know, there are other pollutants—microplastics and other things—but we have had all these years of pollution, and these particulates are particularly poisonous for marine life. I hope that today we can put on record that we all want a marine environment where oysters, crabs and lobsters can thrive. I might also throw in the fact that, as some of us who know something about the history of London will remember—I do not know whether there are any London Members here—there used to be all sorts of different things in the river that people could buy and catch. I have to admit, though, that I was surprised when hosting a birthday party for my granddaughter on the Terrace in the summer to peer over the side into the Thames and see three seals swimming by.
Does that say something about the quality of the environment in our river? I am not sure, but it is certainly true that eels have disappeared from the river. Where have the eels in this country gone? When I was a very young man at the London School of Economics, I used to go to Eel Pie Island on a boat—eel pie was a very important dish—to hear this anonymous group that I liked. I met the guy who started the group and used to go to hear them, before they had a name. Then this colleague of mine, a student at the LSE—well, his name was Mick Jagger—and his group got a name, and they performed as the Rolling Stones. What has happened to the eels and crustaceans in our marine environment? If there is one thing that I hope we can all agree on today, it is the serious poisoning effect all around our coast.
In his very good speech, the hon. Member for Totnes mentioned sewage. Even after being given enormous fines, Thames Water and Southern Water are still discharging tonnes and tonnes of sewage into our rivers, streams and seas. I am constantly pursuing Thames Water and the Environment Agency, which is very lax. So many of the places it should be monitoring around our coast, it is not monitoring efficiently and effectively, because it is under-resourced. This type of pollution, which is linked to cancer, will poison all of our marine environment. I hope we can do something about it.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on obtaining this debate. I echo an awful lot of what he said. There is enormous potential for the expansion of shellfish production in the UK.
I want to talk specifically about my constituency and echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). Looking around the room, I see that we have representation from Devon and Cornwall, Yorkshire, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I want to talk on behalf of Essex, where oysters have been cultivated since Roman times.
When I was first elected to this place, I had the honour to represent part of Colchester, so I used to attend the Colchester oyster feast, with oysters from Mersea Island. I have always represented Maldon, where the Maldon Oyster Company is based. I had the pleasure of visiting its new depuration and packing plant in Cock Clarks recently. Restaurants across the great city that we are in now frequently have Maldon oysters on the menu.
The Maldon Oyster Company is doing well. The oysters are grown in the Blackwater estuary, which is a category B water. It has only exceeded that once in recent times. Various explanations have been put forward for that, with suggestions that it is to do with discharges from houseboats or seabirds, but my constituents believe—this is where I follow on from the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield—that it is due to the level of sewage discharge, particularly from development that is taking place.
My area, like many represented here, is undergoing substantial extra housing development, which is putting ever-increasing pressure on the sewerage companies. In my case, that is Anglian Water. When I talk to the company, it tells me that it monitors and is compliant with the requirements of its permits, and it is fitting new discharge monitors; 70% of my constituency has been fitted, and Anglian is confident of reaching 100%. But part of the problem is that the contamination affecting oyster production is not subject to monitoring outside of designated shellfish waters and bathing waters. While part of the Blackwater estuary is a designated water, other parts where oysters are grown are not.
I recently held a public meeting in my constituency on the issue of the water quality in the Blackwater estuary. The hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned the Rolling Stones. I invited an old friend of mine to participate in the public meeting, who I think will be known to the Minister. He was known to me in his previous capacity as the lead singer of the Undertones, who I saw perform on several occasions. He has now become a strident campaigner on the issue of water quality. While I do not always agree with Feargal Sharkey, he is doing an important job in raising awareness.
My contribution this afternoon is to pass on the request from my constituents at Maldon Oysters that there needs to be more monitoring, not just in specified designated shellfish waters, of such things as E. coli and bacterial contamination, which is not generally monitored, and that priority needs to be given to investment in the processing of discharge, perhaps through UV treatment of discharges that are close to shellfish waters. At the moment, Blackwater continues to grow extremely popular oysters that are enjoyed around the country, but there is concern that, if development continues at this pace without additional investment to ensure that the water remains uncontaminated by bacteria, that could one day be put at risk. I echo the point about the importance of maintaining water quality, which is essential if this extremely important industry is to continue to thrive.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me, Ms Elliott. I am pleased to be able briefly to highlight a few issues. I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on his knowledgeable contribution. His delivery was almost as rapid as mine—although his abbreviations are much easier to understand. I thank him very much. I found out only this morning that the debate had changed, but when I saw it was on shellfish, I recognised right away—representing Strangford, as I do—that I could make a contribution on the subject.
DEFRA’s figures indicate that wee Northern Ireland, as I call it, produced more oysters than even England did in 2020, so it is important that we have an input in this debate. It is clear that this is yet another UK-wide fishing industry that needs improvement to balance the key goals of conservation and production.
Of course, the Minister knows that fishing and shellfish aquaculture is a devolved matter, but in Strangford we have a very active, thriving and economically viable industry, with Cuan Oysters. We have had it for a number of years—I cannot remember not having it in Strangford lough, to be truthful. I recognise the work that it does, the contribution it makes to the economy and the jobs that it creates.
I understand that the Department feels that it is inappropriate to develop a policy for a non-native species. However, I agree with the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, to which the hon. Member for Totnes referred, that Pacific oysters are not harmful, that they in fact increase biodiversity and that they can benefit native oyster populations by acting as a settlement surface. Why should anyone want to change that? The hon. Gentleman was right in his request to the Minister to seek to have the position overturned.
Worldwide, oyster reefs are generally considered highly desirable habitats, and there are many projects under way to create or restore them. Whether native or non-native, the fact remains that all oysters are equally good for the environment; they clear waters of algae, remove carbon and nitrogen, and increase biodiversity. Again, why would we want to change that successful process? Indeed, oyster farmers control the accessible wild stocks in their areas, making use of the resource and reducing the visible population. There is a strong argument to be made that, if we continue to restrict the UK industry, it will not stop the spread of Pacific oysters.
The popularity of Pacific oysters is growing in the UK, as evidenced by the demand for them, and that cannot be ignored. There are areas where oyster festivals attract tourism and economic growth. Many things come off the back of what the hon. Member for Totnes said. I agree with the APPG that we need a national policy that is realistic and pragmatic and that takes a holistic approach to the species. We need a better understanding of what is before us.
Another issue that I wish briefly to touch on is—this will not surprise anybody—the dreaded EU bureaucracy. My goodness! We never get away from it, do we? I know that we do not in Northern Ireland—I will not get into the Northern Ireland thing at the minute; that is a matter for the future. It is necessary to purify shellfish after harvesting in UK waters, as many of the waters around our coast are not deemed clean enough for shellfish to be consumed directly after harvesting. However, following Brexit, the EU will only accept shellfish that are already safe to eat, so the UK industry can no longer export produce for purification, even though the waters are the same.
I cannot understand what the difference is. It is a bit like it was for us in Northern Ireland when the EU said that we could not bring in plants and seeds, when the soil was the same on 31 December as it was 24 hours later. That policy has meant a dramatic fall in shellfish exports, with many businesses unable to operate at all.
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The EU reversed its earlier position when it came to the export of depurated live bivalve molluscs, which is really quite outrageous. It told the Government, in the latter part of 2020, that that trade could continue and that it would just draft a new certificate, and then it just changed its position, inexplicably, in February.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; as always, he brings knowledge to the debate. That is part of the debate, and it is part of the evidence base that backs up the very point that the hon. Member for Totnes and others are making.
As with so many issues, that barrier to trade is not logical, but then when did anything logical come out of the EU? I say that maybe a wee bit cynically, Ms Elliott. There may be a few others here who agree, and there may be some who would say, “No, that’s not entirely correct.”
Jim Shannon
If the hon. Gentleman intends to talk about Huddersfield, I am not sure, but I give way anyway.
Mr Sheerman
We will be divided on membership of the EU and the wisdom of leaving it, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we are debating—air quality, the marine environment and support for species—is something that we have to work with the rest of Europe on?
Jim Shannon
Yes, of course it is. The point I am making is that, very often—
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that this debate is about shellfish aquaculture and not the EU.
Jim Shannon
I stand corrected, Ms Elliott. Thank you for reminding us all of the real reason for the debate. The thing is that shellfish aquaculture is restricted by EU bureaucracy. The trade has existed for many years—it existed when we were in the EU and it exists now that we are out of it—and nothing has materially altered. That is the issue. There is no reason for the trade not to continue as it was before. Again, that is part of the issue.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is right: if we could work together honestly, pragmatically and reasonably to try to find a solution, then I would say, “Yes, let’s do that.” But we will not find the UK Government causing any difficulties; we have to put the ball at the toe of the organisation that is responsible. The Shellfish Association of Great Britain highlights that DEFRA does not agree with the current EU interpretation of the regulations and has raised the issue at the sanitary and phytosanitary committee, but to no effect.
The Minister knows that I respect him greatly. He understands issues very clearly, and I know that he understands this one. I have no doubt that he will get behind the shellfish aquaculture sector, and the Shellfish Association, to ensure that a solution is found. This is not about negativity; it is all about solutions, and the Minister is a solution-led Minister.
I urge the Minister to progress this issue as a matter of urgency. We have the resource—when I say “we”, I mean this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and that can be used to the benefit of everyone in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in England—the mainland—as well. To realise that benefit, we must utilise the resource more effectively, and that can happen only if we can find a solution. Let us hope that the EU will give us that solution so that we in the United Kingdom can work alongside it.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I have never done so before and it has been on my bucket list for a while. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing this important debate. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on shellfish aquaculture and he is its treasurer. He is definitely the Dastardly to my Muttley, which makes him the more intelligent one.
The Chamber has heard from Members from Devon, Cornwall, Yorkshire, Essex and Northern Ireland—and is now hearing from me, a Cumbrian. My home looks out on to Morecambe Bay, where hundreds of small fishers operate. There is a large oyster farm off Walney, and in Barrow, quite surprisingly, we have one of the largest producers and conglomerators of live bivalve molluscs in the UK.
The sector is struggling, but it does not need to. There are huge opportunities; if it is managed well and given the tools it needs for growth, it could be a great British success story. It offers an almost unlimited and sustainable source of protein for us and for export markets. It offers a boon to our coastal communities—many of which, as we know all too well, are struggling—and it could be a guarantor of marine biodiversity. But it is hamstrung and held back. The tools to unlock it are within our grasp, and I urge the Minister to enable us to grasp them.
I would like to focus on three areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes has covered them all, but I have learned during my two and a bit years in this job that original thought does not get you anywhere in this place, so I will repeat them. The areas are live bivalve molluscs, highly protected marine areas and pacific oysters. If we can unlock those three, the sector will be flying.
I turn to live bivalve molluscs. We operate under the same water testing rules as the European Union, but many of our European friends clearly interpret them differently. The trade and co-operation agreement means that we are unable to export grade B live bivalve molluscs without their having undergone depuration. That holds back the sector tremendously—when I talk to them, businesses in my area say that it is what they are most concerned about.
Of course, we can build up our home-grown depuration facilities. In fact we do, and I am grateful to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for extending funding to some aquaculture businesses for that purpose. However, we really have to grip the core issue: the Food Standards Agency, which has taken an incredibly bureaucratic view of the testing regime. That is holding the sector back and has led to stagnation over the years. We have the same system and rules as elsewhere in Europe, but the UK interprets them the most strictly.
There is no evidence that our more restrictive system does any better in protecting public health. Given that measurements can change by the hour, the system of taking them monthly means that many fantastic local businesses are one bad measurement away from closure. That speaks to the really parlous state of the industry, and it needs to change. Our waters are not poor, but our system of measurement, and our ability and willingness to measure quickly, are poor.
We need to look at how our colleagues in Europe are interpreting exactly the same rules and to unashamedly copy them. Kingfisher Seafoods—the business in Barrow that I mentioned—supports about 100 family businesses in Morecambe Bay. The economic impact of failing to get this issue right will be devastating not just for that business, but for the 100 family fishermen, who have been operating for years.
The excellent Benyon review suggested that highly protected marine areas should not include commercial fishing. I strongly agree, but I do think that aquaculture businesses should be permitted to operate in them. Their inclusion in highly protected marine areas would aid biodiversity recovery as well as acting as an effective carbon sink. We should consider that closely; to my mind, it is a win-win.
The third point is about pacific oysters, which make up 95% of all UK-grown oysters. For some time they were classified as invasive but, as we have heard, they have become naturalised due to their prevalence. There is almost no chance of ridding our coastal waters of them and we would not want to. Our waters, of course, are linked to our European neighbours, who have correctly recognised pacific oysters as naturalised and started harvesting them. What is the result? As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, France’s aquaculture sector produces 145,000 tonnes per year, compared with our 2,680 tonnes. The delta is enormous. By simply looking at this in a different way, we can see the scale of the growth on offer.
If DEFRA were to recognise Pacific oysters as naturalised across the UK, businesses such as the excellent Morecambe Bay Oysters on Walney in my constituency would be able to scale up. Others that are currently at risk of closure would be able to continue to operate and to leave the parlous state they find themselves in now. If we do not grasp this issue and change the language and terms that this sector operates under, we risk many of the most innovative businesses in the UK closing within the next few years. We have it in our gift to enable a viable and sustainable aquaculture sector, on which thousands of new jobs could rely and which would promote biodiversity and offer considerable trade opportunities.
Although I am too cheap to copy my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and invite colleagues and the Chair to lunch, I would encourage them to take up his offer, because this is a story we should tell people about and that they need to learn about. It is a good news story waiting to happen. I hope the Minister will listen to the cross-party consensus on supporting this sector and help get things moving for it.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. Let me start by congratulating the fantastic hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). He has been one of the pivotal members of my trade Committee over the last number of years. I might have spoken wrongly —when I say my trade Committee, I mean his trade Committee, as he has guided us, shaped us, positioned us and pointed us in various directions. He has a natural enthusiasm, and I say with all sincerity that today he brought the fantastic enthusiasm he has as MP for Totnes to this debate. For that alone, he should be congratulated.
The hon. Gentleman raised issues that are very important and dear to my heart, and he has given me a fantastic opportunity to point out the companies that operate in my constituency. If he is looking to supplement the production of Devon with any other shellfish, he could look to Macduff Shellfish in Stornoway; Kallin Shellfish in Grimsay, North Uist; Barratlantic in North Bay, Barra; Kilbride Shellfish in Ludag, South Uist; Kilo Shellfish, which often buys razor fish for the far east market; Islander Shellfish in Stornaway; William Stewart, again in Grimsay, North Uist; or PDK Shellfish. Of course, I have to mention MacNeil Shellfish—not close cousins, but on the Hebridean islands we are often very related—Islay Crab, Sutherland Game & Shellfish, Norman Campbell, which does live shellfish for the export trade, and Hebridean Mussels, which is part of Loch Fyne Oysters. On Loch Fyne Oysters, I would gently say to Marine Scotland that it should look to help the company, which operates in my area, and to support the efforts it is making. When there are disputes, maybe one person being judge, jury and executioner is not the best way to proceed. I must also mention Raven Rock Sea Products, based in Lewis; Seaforth Mussels, in Scalpay, Harris; and Lewis Mussels, based in Lochs, in Lewis. While I am at it, I think I missed out Stellamaris Trading, Morrison Shellfish and Isle of Barra Oysters, which I am very indebted to for a number of points I will make later.
The hon. Member for Totnes touched on a number of things that have been echoed in my correspondence with Isle of Barra Oysters, namely the issue of Pacific oysters and the reality of their existence. Gerry MacDonald makes the very good point—I think somebody mentioned it in the debate—that it is not far from Cornwall to France, so any attempts on Pacific oysters will be in vain. They are important commercially. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the production of oysters—I think it was 3,000 tonnes in the UK and 145,000 tonnes in France. Gerry MacDonald tells me that 90% of that, or 130,000 tonnes, is consumed around the two weeks at Christmas in France and that the car producer Renault buy about 300 tonnes of oysters for staff. If anyone is looking for a job, they might want to go to Renault just before Christmas for a nice feed of oysters for Christmas dinner. Those are quite amazing statistics. France is, of course, a huge market for oysters.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) left no stone unturned—or no stone unrolling, given his mention of Mick Jagger. He made an important point about how interdependent different parts of environment are. The cars rolling around Huddersfield and everywhere else—I am not singling out Huddersfield—give off 32 chemicals from their tyres, which are inevitably washed into the oceans. That is a fantastic point, and we should dwell on it.
Mr Sheerman
I misled hon. Members a little. I have a Bill going through the House at the moment on tyres. There are some higher-standard tyres that are better, so the Minister could make a real difference very quickly.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I utterly forgive the hon. Gentleman for using his intervention as an advertisement. After all, I mentioned many companies involved with shellfish in my constituency, so it is only just and right that he similarly uses the opportunity.
The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned water purification, which has become an issue, particularly in recent years, since Brexit. He also mentioned a pop band: The Undertones. We have just left the “Rock Lobster” unturned—that is the only one we have left. We have certainly put every bit of music into this—the debate has gone almost like a symphony.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is never usually left out of any debate. I think I heard him ask when anything logical has ever come out of the EU. I do not know whether that was a criticism of Brexit. Did I mishear him? I definitely misheard him—I know what he was saying. The point is that the UK is now trading like a third country and will have the barriers that third countries have. The trade and co-operation agreement helps, but a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement would help further.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) is the chair of the very distinguished all-party parliamentary group for shellfish aquaculture. I am sure he relays his august position to all his constituents in his constituency correspondence. If I am not a member, can I make an application?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Thank you. Reflecting the tone the hon. Member for Totnes took in his speech, my application has been expedited in record time.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said that original thought in Parliament does not seem to get us anywhere, but I think he may be wrong when it comes to some areas of aquaculture. More power to his elbow as he carries on that noble pursuit.
Scotland’s mussel production increased by 52%, to 8,590 tonnes, between 2020 and 2021, and oyster production was up 70% in the same period. Combined, their value was £9.8 million—up 61%. That is a success story. It is also a success story in this particular form of aquaculture. Oysters are kept in protective cages, as I have seen myself at Isle of Barra Oysters, and mussels hang from ropes, feeding on what passes by in the sea. In fact, they clean the sea, in many ways.
I am very much indebted to Gerard MacDonald of Isle of Barra Oysters, who said that Brexit has made export more difficult for him, and the import of specialist equipment more expensive. That is a very interesting point. He feels that Brexit has damaged the industry, limited prospects for expansion and hindered jobs in rural areas. He pointed out that Renault took much of the production. He said that France has huge production, but it imports a lot from Ireland, the Netherlands and England. He also points out that the Irish are now selling an awful lot of oysters directly to China at very good prices. He says that the cash is good for oysters from Ireland to China. We can learn from what is going on there, especially at this time of Brexit. Whether we are inside or outside the EU, that should not hamper our exports to China.
I am anxious to hear what the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and the Minister have to say in reply to the hon. Member for Totnes, and I want to leave him time to wind up. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak, Ms Elliott.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing the debate, on his introduction and on his account of the issues facing those working in aquaculture. I suspect I will cover much of the same ground, although possibly in a slightly different order and with a slightly different take on one or two points. I am, as ever, grateful to those working in the industry for their advice. In particular, I thank Mike Cohen of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and David Jarrad of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain.
I hope the Minister will address four key issues. The first, unsurprisingly perhaps, is water quality and the Government’s continuing failure to clean up our water. I very much enjoyed the observations from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). The issue, of course, goes way beyond aquaculture. I am sure the Minister will be disappointed to hear that I am not going to re-rehearse all the arguments now; they are, I am sure, very familiar to him and his colleagues. With the recent heavy rainfall, we are once again seeing huge quantities of human effluent being pumped into the seas, including into shellfish areas, which are supposed to have mandatory protection, whether that is under the water framework directive or the legislation that we carry forward. That is unacceptable and it directly impacts fishermen and their livelihoods.
The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) made that point very persuasively, and I heard it directly myself when I went to West Mersea last year. The shellfishermen were clear that it was an all-too-regular occurrence that effluent discharged into the sea and meant they had to stop work. That has a direct cost for them, and it would be an avoidable one if water companies had invested in improvement rather than pouring out money to shareholders.
The point was picked up by Labour’s shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), when she visited the Fal Oyster Ltd fishery at Mylor in Cornwall last year. She told ITV News at the time:
“We just can’t afford to lose industries like this. It is about the heritage of Cornwall, it’s about what makes this place so special not just to people in Cornwall but to people all around the country. We need to hear and heed the warnings of fishermen here in Cornwall who are worried about water quality, who are worried about the impact that’s having on their ability to sell their produce here and abroad.”
She was absolutely right. I suspect that she is probably quite busy at the moment, but I ask the Minister to tell us what assessment the Government have made of the impact of poor water quality on the aquaculture sector.
If that is a relatively well-rehearsed discussion, the second issue is probably less familiar to those outside this room. It is the Government’s attitude to Pacific oysters. The industry view is pretty clear, and its call that we should “love them” makes a strong case that they are good for farmers, the consumer and the environment. Its case is that, with a low-carbon footprint and with no requirement for external inputs, the cultivation of the Pacific oyster represents a sustainable method of producing high-quality marine protein while providing employment and economic activity in coastal communities.
Of course, not everyone agrees—we have heard observations on this from other communities—because it is not a native species. Natural England and others are concerned about the impact on the marine environment. They say that feral populations of Pacific oysters have become established in Natura 2000 sites, sites of special scientific interest and marine conservation zones. They say that monitoring conducted between 2012 and 2017 in the south-west showed a large increase in Pacific oyster density. There are concerns that colonisation by the species will have a negative effect on the designated intertidal features of these protected areas. They say that that has already contributed to some sites declining into unfavourable condition, because of the alteration of the biotopes and therefore the loss of original biotopes that make up the protected habitat features within marine protected areas. They say that if populations are left unmanaged, the expansion of dense Pacific oyster populations will most likely reduce the extent of habitat features at the sites and could reduce species richness and change community composition, as well as the diversity of biotopes making up the habitat.
Therefore this is not a simple or straightforward issue. The industry argues—again, we have heard these points made—that with warming of the seas, attempts to cull the Pacific oyster are, frankly, unlikely to be successful, so it is better to manage and farm it. Although indigenous to western Pacific coasts, it is nowadays the world’s most globalised shellfish, with cultivation occurring in more than 50 countries. It provides high-value crops in all continents. In Europe, production in France, Ireland and Spain dwarfs that in the UK. As we have heard, production in France is in the region of 100 times that in Britain and attracts significant Government support.
The industry is therefore unhappy that the UK Government seem to stand alone in Europe in acting against the species. David Jarrad, chief executive of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, writes:
“Do we actually want a UK oyster industry? For too long, the government has been sitting on the fence, and the failure of successive governments to deliver a consistent national approach is leading to poor conservation outcomes, as well as hamstringing our oyster growers…It’s time to get priorities straight, with proper leadership on this issue.”
There is the challenge to the Minister—the call for proper leadership.
The third issue, which returns us to more familiar ground, is the classification of harvesting waters. I was interested in the comments from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), but I promise I am not going to go there. We do things in a different way here —gold-plating, as the industry argues, compared with the way EU members do things, even though we supposedly work under the same legislation.
The Shellfish Association of Great Britain tells me that there is no evidence that our more restrictive system does any better than other countries’ more permissive ones. Our system is based on taking one sample a month from waters that change on an hourly basis because of tidal flows. I am told that it has been shown that one sample is often entirely different from another sample taken from the same place at the same time. The test method has been shown to be more variable and less accurate than other approved test methods. The association argues that the system needs to be changed, to be more in line with other countries, so our industry is not disadvantaged.
I hear those points and have considerable sympathy with them. Again, we heard reference to the work of the Food Standards Agency. I would be grateful if the Minister gave his take on what the FSA has done so far, and what more can be done. Of course, safety always has to be highest priority, but it is fair to ask why our fishermen are being held to higher standards than their competitors. What is stopping him levelling the playing field?
Mr Sheerman
I always defer to my hon. Friend as the Member for Cambridge, expecting him always to know everything about everything scientific. Could he tell me whether there is evidence that we are overfishing oysters? Is there a decline in stock? Should we stop? I have given up red meat. Should I also give up oysters?
Daniel Zeichner
I am terribly sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend: I do not know everything about everything. I would not pretend to do so, and must go away to seek advice on that question. I suspect that the Pacific oyster is plentiful, and there is plenty of opportunity to make more of it. I do not suggest that he needs to give up.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The long list of companies from my constituency of Na h-Eileanan an Iar that I read out would encourage the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) to eat oysters and mussels, as well as a variety of other shellfish. I would also like to mention an advertisement that I missed out, which is that they are operating in class A waters probably all year round.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the intervention. Finally, I return to a familiar theme, which we discussed at length in the Chamber with the previous Secretary of State: trade with the European Union. Since Brexit, we have lost our main market for live bivalves, as it is now much harder to sell them from class B sites. As I recall, it was such a difficulty initially that the Government offered short-term help, while, as we have heard today, blaming it on the European Union.
Daniel Zeichner
I thought the hon. Gentleman might not be able to resist the temptation.
Anthony Mangnall
I am sorry, but I will be brief. It is worth being clear on this, because there is not a broad amount of disagreement in this debate. We have not lost that market. Current export figures are going in the right direction. It is a case of our saying that more work needs to be done. Exports are reaching that market; it is not “lost”, as the hon. Gentleman termed it.
Daniel Zeichner
Well, it seems to me that there were some who lost their businesses at that time. I do not think we should shy away from that. I would like to hear from the Minister what has happened over the past couple of years, and what is being done to secure a negotiated solution, to reinstate that trade, which had been possible over many years.
In conclusion, the aquaculture sector is one with considerable potential. Labour will sell, make and buy more food here. That is good for food security, for jobs and, I would argue, for the local environment. More will be produced locally, and we will expect the public sector to source at least 50% of food locally.
It is hard to disagree that the fishing sector more widely felt let down after the many promises that were made to them about Brexit. The reality was much more bureaucracy, much more cost and, in some cases, the end of business. One of my first visits as a shadow Minister was to King’s Lynn, where I met a processor who told me just how much extra work had to be done, contrasting the single form they used to fill in with the pile of manuals detailing how they need to proceed today. I have to admit that he cheerily told me it would all be worth it. I admired his pluck and optimism, but whatever one’s view on the issue today, I hope the Minister can explain what he and his Department are doing to reduce that bureaucratic burden, so that our fishermen can do what they do best, which is feed people, rather than fill in forms.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. We have had a wide-ranging debate, from Brexit to car tyres to pop stars. I fear that I cannot compete with some of the connections my colleagues have in that sector, although I have to put on record my connections to both Michael Jackson and George Michael, which go right back to the 1980s, when I first bought their records. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing the debate. His efforts and those of other members of the APPG for shellfish aquaculture are very much appreciated, and I thank all those who have made valuable contributions to the debate.
Aquaculture is a vital part of the United Kingdom’s seafood industry, and shellfish aquaculture in particular holds an important place in our coastal communities. It supports local economies and provides sustainable, healthy, low-carbon food. The Government support the sustainable, industry-led growth of shellfish aquaculture. However, as Members have noted, there are challenges facing the sector.
Let me start by looking at export issues. The Government continue to challenge the restrictions imposed by the European Union on the import of live bivalve molluscs. It is my belief that the EU’s decision only to import live bivalve molluscs that are already fit for human consumption is unjustified. It does not align with the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement. DEFRA continues to push the EU on this issue. We do not expect the EU to change its position any time soon, but we will continue to push it as robustly as we can.
George Eustice
My recollection is that the EU basically used an animal health certificate and just changed the wording to preclude live bivalve molluscs, so it probably does not require a legal change from the EU; it simply needs the EU to draft a particular type of export health certificate that would accommodate live bivalve molluscs. Given that there has been a slight thawing in relations with the EU following the discussions on Northern Ireland, does the Minister think this is something the chief veterinary officer could broach again?
Mark Spencer
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for all the work he did as Secretary of State. I do not want to over-promise—I would rather over-deliver—but I recognise what he says about the changing relationship with the EU. Now that we have resolved the challenges with Northern Ireland, we are into a new phase of co-operation and working with our friends in the EU, and I hope we can continue to raise the matter with them and find a suitable conclusion that will help businesses up and down our coastline to export great-quality products to the EU as soon as possible.
Mr Sheerman
Would it not be better if we consumed more of our own oysters, rather than exporting them? I always thought oysters were rather boring in this country, and when I went to New Orleans, I realised that they can do wonderful things with oysters there. Is it not about time that some of our chefs made oysters more interesting on the menu?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the political trap of a Minister saying, “Let them eat oysters”, which I hope not to fall into. UK food producers in general, not only in the shellfish sector, are producing some of the highest-quality food anywhere in the word. We consume great amounts of that in the UK, but there are also opportunities to export at the same time. We should consume more UK-produced food as well as exporting to our friends around the world.
Mark Spencer
I will give way, but I have to get through my speech at some point.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The Minister and I go back quite a long way, and have had tug o’ wars in the Commons in the past. The hon. Member for Huddersfield makes a serious suggestion. While the Minister was right to point out the dangers of being trapped by a headline in the paper, far too often, good food production is overlooked—in the west of Scotland, as I have mentioned, and in other places in the UK. It is even overlooked in the House of Commons. We cannot see production anywhere near this Palace, and if we cannot have it in Parliament, where can we have it? We should have it everywhere, and everyone should know about it and talk about it. It is a serious point, although I do see the media trap of raising it, as the Minister expertly pointed out.
Mark Spencer
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he talks to the catering team in the House of Commons, he would find that they are very good at procuring UK-produced and locally produced food. If he goes to the Tea Room this afternoon, there is a fish pie on offer that I encourage him to partake in. It may well have Scottish fish in it.
Turning to shellfish classifications, yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting Susan Jebb, the chair of the Food Standards Agency. The FSA is a non-ministerial Government Department responsible for its own policies. I can report that the FSA is committed to delivering official controls that are pragmatic and proportionate while supporting the shellfish industry to thrive. The FSA will continue to work collaboratively with the industry to prioritise and implement improvements to shellfish classification protocols. It is a complex area, and it will take some time.
In making improvements, the FSA is drawing on Seafish’s 2021 review of the application of official control regulations for shellfish production across the globe. To illustrate the impact of what the FSA has achieved in this respect, since 2021, changes made to the shellfish classification system have increased the number of class A areas in England and Wales from 26 to 40, and seasonal class A areas from 19 to 27. That means the EU market remains open to an additional 22 business, without increasing risk to human health. Ultimately, the classification of shellfish waters is dependent on the water quality, which is why DEFRA’s ongoing work to improve water quality in England is so important.
Most English shellfish harvesting sites are class B. Water industry investments of nearly £200 million in improvements to assets that affect shellfish waters in England between 2000 and 2020 have prevented deterioration. We are looking for more improvement opportunities. Through collaboration with the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Environment Agency, DEFRA has identified 63 priority shellfish areas, where water quality improvement is considered feasible. We have asked water companies to make improvements in those areas and we expect to see this reflected in their plans.
The Pacific oyster is an important species for the shellfish aquaculture industry in England. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes contests its invasive, non- native status and has argued for the species to be considered naturalised. At present, Pacific oysters are classified as a non-native species in UK waters and are currently considered to be invasive. Evidence from Natural England suggests that they can alter habitats and ecosystems through reef formation, which can displace native oysters and have a negative impact on native biodiversity.
I am aware of the length of time that Pacific oysters have been in UK waters. I am keen to understand more about their impacts and benefits, and possible mitigations. As such, I will seek to meet with officials, regulators and scientists in the coming weeks to explore the matter further. DEFRA’s policy position on Pacific oysters and the expansion of the industry was shared with the shellfish aquaculture APPG in August last year. I am happy to share with Members the fact that the Department seeks to balance economic and environmental considerations.
In short, north of 52° latitude, where it may be possible to reduce the rate at which Pacific oysters spread by limiting human assistance because they are currently less prevalent, DEFRA does not support the expansion of the Pacific oyster farming industry. However, DEFRA recognises that some Pacific oyster farms have operated in this region for many years, and to reduce the risk that the farms can pose to nearby MPAs, DEFRA supports regulators in the introduction of mitigating authorisation conditions where necessary. South of 52° latitude, both new applications and existing farms will be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the impact on MPAs.
On support for the industry, it remains possible to export LBMs from class B waters to the EU, provided that they have been depurated prior to export. As well as working to improve water quality and free up trade, DEFRA has provided significant financial support to help LBM businesses continue to export and develop new markets. Under the fisheries and seafood scheme, DEFRA has supported the sector with over £600,000 in grants to 15 projects involving the construction or purchase of tanks for the depuration of LBMs. It also remains possible to farm Pacific oysters, and many businesses continue to do so very successfully.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Given the earlier mention of oysters, mussels and filter feeders, I am not clear what impact they have on MPAs. I know that there are always bureaucrats and people who call themselves conservationists with plenty to say on the issue, but they are usually more a hindrance than a help. I struggle to see what the impact is, and I would be grateful, if it is obvious, if the Minister could tell us. If not, he can write to us.
Mark Spencer
It is about reef formation and whether the reefs that are formed from those oyster communities have an impact. I am not saying that they do have an impact on marine protected areas; what I am saying is that we want to continue to monitor that to ensure that they do not have a negative impact on those marine protected areas.
In summary, it is clearly a difficult time for the industry. His Majesty’s Government recognise the challenges that shellfish farmers face, and we will continue to work with the industry to address them. We have already set out how we can assist and how we are trying to help. However, we ask the industry to think seriously about its business models and how it can best adapt its operations to meet post-exit trading conditions and ensure its own long-term survival. As I noted at the start of the debate, aquaculture is a vital part of our seafood industry. I want it to thrive over the next few years, and I will continue to liaise with colleagues, help and support the industry, and move forward together.
Anthony Mangnall
This has at times been quite a weird and tangential debate but, as I think I said in my opening remarks, it has not really been a debate—it has been a moment of violent agreement about the fact that we all recognise the opportunity for the sector and the fact that there is work that can be done. Let me sum up in a few ways.
First, I encourage all Members here to join the all-party parliamentary group on this topic. It is trying to push the right agenda—one that works with the industry. Secondly, I encourage Members to attend the Shellfish Association of Great Britain conference on 6 and 7 June—they would all be very welcome—in Fishmongers’ Hall. It would be extremely interesting to hear how the Minister gets on with the chief veterinary officer on export health certificates and how the piece of legislation that will digitise our trade documentation would allow that to work. There is an opportunity for us to reshape the document that we use for global trade and trade with the European Union, which is important.
Thirdly, we would be very interested in hearing how the Minister gets on with officials regarding Pacific oysters and the progress he makes on that. The problem that I have at the moment is that they have been here for 100 years. Go to an oyster farm, mussel farm, scallop farm or clam site; pick up a rope of mussels—all that falls off is plankton, crab and small larvae of sorts. It is unbelievably enthusing and impressive to see the positive impact that that has on biodiversity. Finding a way to allow that to work with marine protected areas and highly protected marine areas would be of huge benefit, and would give a very strong signal to the industry. I hope that the Minister will listen on that.
We are grateful for the Minister’s time. The opportunity is now. We have all raised these issues before, and we will strengthen his arm in whatever way we possibly can to make this a success and help the industry to grow.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered shellfish aquaculture.
Levelling Up Fund: Tipton and Wednesbury
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
I will call Shaun Bailey to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Tipton and Wednesbury and the Levelling Up Fund.
People across the Black Country, in Tipton and Wednesbury specifically—whether they live on the Tibby estate, the Lost City, Friar Park or the Woods estate—are proud of their communities and where they come from. I am proud to represent an area with a long tradition and a proud sense of community.
Our great Black Country towns of Tipton and Wednesbury have consistently felt like they have been left behind. When I was elected to this place three years ago, I made one simple pledge to them: I would ensure that they were never forgotten again. That has been at the forefront of the work I have done since I was elected as the Member of Parliament for West Bromwich West in 2019. Of course, we have to remember that in 2019, the current Government were elected on a manifesto to level up and invest in communities like those in Tipton and Wednesbury, and indeed across the Black Country.
We know that talent and genius are uniformly distributed throughout the country, but opportunity, wealth and standards of living are not. Unfortunately, in my area, we have acute issues and problems with standards of living and access to opportunity. It is vital that we close that gap. We know that as it widens, it will only compound the problems in communities such as the ones I represent. I want to talk about the importance of the levelling-up fund to the communities I represent, in particular the towns of Tipton and Wednesbury, and to tell the story of the process they have gone through on this journey, particularly in respect of the levelling-up fund.
First, we need to set the context. Look, for example, at employment opportunities. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough, the local authority area that contains my constituency, has an employment rate below that of the west midlands, and indeed Great Britain. In 2004, Sandwell’s unemployment rate was 8.7%, compared with 5.2% in the west midlands and 4.8% nationally; in 2009, that unemployment rate rose to 14.4%, compared with 8.5% and 6.8% respectively. In 2022, unemployment in Sandwell stood at 6.2%, while the national average was 3.8%. Sandwell’s labour market profile shows that the economically inactive rate in Sandwell is 10% higher than either the west midlands or the wider country.
Let us look at wages. In April 2022, median gross weekly wages in Sandwell were £470 for all employees, compared to £532.50 across the UK as a whole, and £549.80 for full-time employees, compared to £640 across the UK as a whole. On average, therefore, my constituents take home £90 a week less than the average person in the United Kingdom. Equally, we have to address education gaps. At early key stage 2, 55% of pupils attending state-funded schools in my local authority area achieve the expected standard, which is below the national average of 59% and the west midlands average of 57%. The gap continues to grow at GCSE level, where 61% of students attending state-funded schools in my area achieve a standard pass, which is below the national state-funded average of 69% and the west midlands average of 67%. It goes without saying that Sandwell is the eighth most deprived upper-tier local authority area in the country. One of my wards is, I think, the second most deprived in the west midlands region.
In setting the context of the importance of the levelling-up fund to my communities, we can see that the acute challenges and problems that I was sent to Parliament to address on behalf of my constituents and the communities of myself, my neighbours and friends are absolutely self-evident.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
My hon. Friend is a true champion for his constituency. I find it rather sad that the Opposition Benches are absolutely empty today, even though we have MPs in this place from both major parties representing the west midlands. I rose to support my hon. Friend and to ask this: does he agree that the levelling up of opportunity is about not just his constituency, but all constituencies across the west midlands? We have strong local councillors in Walsall under the leadership of Mike Bird. They work with local MPs and our West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street, who is doing a fantastic job and has secured the devolution deal that he just heard about in the Budget. That is how we make the huge strides that my hon. Friend has been seeking to secure in levelling up the west midlands, but the work continues.
Shaun Bailey
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. It is as if she is clairvoyant—that is the point that I was about to come to. She is right; strong, local leadership is key. Although central Government funding is an important part of the tapestry of levelling up and investing in communities, strong and accountable local leadership, such as what we have seen from our West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street, is vital. He goes out there, bangs the drum and secures funding for our wider region.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s council leader, the legendary Mike Bird. Many of us active in the west midlands have known Mike for some time—he beats the drum for Walsall incredibly. I pay tribute to the Conservative group leader on Sandwell Council, David Fisher, who does that too.
I turn particularly to the need for the levelling-up fund in Tipton and Wednesbury. We found that, until recently, the Labour administration in Sandwell did not have a plan for how they were going to apply for the funds. It is vital that local authorities have a plan—whether they are red, blue or any colour in between, it is important that we take such opportunities. At a recent Sandwell Council meeting, certain councillors were carping about not getting central Government funding when they couldn’t even be bothered to apply for it, which is unacceptable. That is the hilarity of the situation.
One reason why I applied for this debate is that it is important for us to have a conversation about how to ensure that communities do not miss out on this funding through churlish party politics or sheer ineptitude—because people cannot be bothered or cannot manage multiple priorities. I acknowledge that this has got better recently, but at times my constituents have missed out not through failing any test or any central Government requirement, but because the council literally did not put in the application. That is just astounding. The fact is that our communities miss out.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) made the point that Opposition Members were not here. That is unfortunate because what I am talking about must be built across the political divide. Among the 28 Members of Parliament representing the West Midlands Combined Authority area, there is a 50-50 split. It astounds me that there is not one Labour MP in this Chamber.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for all his work. I know how hard he fights for his constituents. Even before we were elected to this place, he and I were both so passionate about the levelling up of the Black Country, and we were both elected on the hyper-local ticket of changing these communities. In Wolverhampton North East, we have seen Government investment into the city of Wolverhampton, and I welcome that.
I absolutely agree with him about the announcement of the devolution deal. Having Andy Street there to work with our Labour and Conservative authorities in the west midlands is key to the Government’s pledge to level up. I ask the Minister to look at Wolverhampton’s remaining levelling-up bid. Today’s funding has gone to one of our outstanding bids in Bilston. I welcome that, but I ask her to look kindly on the one in Wolverhampton North East, our green innovation corridor, which will unlock more jobs. I want to ask my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) if he will celebrate the devolution deal and admit that more has to be done to accelerate that. Our communities need the change very quickly.
Shaun Bailey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her detailed intervention and I endorse her comments. She raises a point made by our right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills about the nuances of the west midlands; that is something I have found in my interactions on the levelling-fund in the context of the towns of Tipton and Wednesbury, which I am discussing today.
We cannot think that the West Midlands Combined Authority area is effectively one socioeconomic area. There are four sub-divisions: the Black Country, Birmingham, Solihull and Coventry, all of which have unique economic and social challenges. Of course, we have seen that in the roll-out of their own levelling-up opportunities in those areas. Indeed, in my conversations with the West Midlands Combined Authority—this is a point I pressed with the Mayor—I said we cannot have a strategy of levelling up in the west midlands based on the idea that if we level up Birmingham, it will spread everywhere else.
There is sometimes a risk in these conversations, and this is another issue my communities in Tipton and Wednesbury face, that people will think, “You can be part of the Greater Birmingham commuter belt zone.” Well, that does not work because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) will know, communities in Wednesfield or Wednesbury could be as far from Birmingham as we are right now.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend makes the passionate point that we need an equitable share of levelling up right across the region. We are talking about not just jobs and skills, but resources like the police, which is why I campaigned to keep my police station in Aldridge open, and transport. Having the city region sustainable transport settlement is equally important so that areas like my hon. Friend’s can level up transport to enable people to go to work or to enjoy leisure and social facilities. That is why—forgive my indulgence, Ms Elliott—I must give a big plug to my train station in Aldridge, which I hope the Minister will now be aware of, although it is not in her portfolio.
Shaun Bailey
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to you, Ms Elliott, for your indulgence. The point my right hon. Friend makes is that we cannot take the levelling-up fund on its own. As I say, it forms part of a much wider patchwork of particularly capital investment into our area. She rightly references her active campaign to keep the Aldridge train station open. I have no doubt whatever, given her other successes such as the redevelopment of Ravens Court in Brownhills, that she will succeed. She has a record of delivery and a promise of more, as I am sure we have all seen on election leaflets.
I turn back to the importance of the levelling-up fund for Tipton and Wednesbury. The point about it being part of a broader patchwork is demonstrated. My local authority has been successful in securing other funding, such as £67 million from the towns fund. I secured £80,000 for flood defence in Tipton, £50,000 to deal with congestion on the A461 Black Country New Road, and £3 million for Wednesbury town centre as part of the heritage action zones. That all forms part of that tapestry with the levelling-up fund.
I say to the Minister that when we look at the levelling-up fund, and I know this was the case in the applications that went through, what I have mentioned should be considered as part of that process, but should not be to its detriment. I appreciate that with a lot of these bids there is a difficult balancing act. I know from interactions I have had with the Department that there has to be a balance between how we divvy out that part of the levelling-up fund, accepting that if areas have had significant funding, it can be difficult to give more and more when other areas have not had it. On Tipton and Wednesbury and the development in Tipton that was part of the recent bid, accepting the broader strategy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East alluded to, is important.
I turn to the specific bid for Tipton. In round 1 of the levelling-up fund, Sandwell Council—for some reason unbeknownst to anyone with logic—did not decide to submit a bid, but in round 2 we did. It had a focus on Tipton town centre. The rationale was based on the fact that Tipton town centre—Owen Street—was Tipton’s beating heart. Tipton itself is a post-industrial town that still has a strong sense of community, and that has been its historical centre. The bid itself looked at a variety of different ways to level up the town centre, whether through regenerating commercial and residential premises or ensuring we had a residential offering in town centres. We have talked a lot in this place about the balance between residential and commercial and how we can reinvigorate our town centres through a residential offering, and that was a key part of the submitted bid as well.
Broadly speaking, my view at the time was that it felt like a good strategic fit for the town. It respected the history of the area and fitted very much with the aims of the Government through the programme, ensuring the balance between commercial use and that we can truly see a return for the community on the investment put into these areas, and also complementing existing investment. I give Sandwell Council its dues—its engagement with me as part of that process was consistent and good, particularly given our recent challenges as a local authority with the introduction of commissioners at the council and a rejig of our senior leadership team. We could see how the changes from the fund could have an impact.
In winding up my remarks, I say to the Minister that the levelling-up fund presented a great opportunity. I was pleased by the Chancellor’s announcement today that we will hopefully now see some investment in Tipton. We must ensure we continue to press forward this levelling-up agenda; it is part of a broader tapestry of work. I thank the Minister for the work she does in this space and for continuing the engagement to ensure we truly maximise this and tackle the acute problems I addressed at the start of my comments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) on securing this important debate on Tipton, Wednesbury and the levelling-up fund. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for their contributions—I will address them.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West is a committed champion for his area and, importantly, a committed advocate of levelling up. Debates such as the one we are having are excellent opportunities to not only talk about the levelling-up agenda but engage with Members such as my hon. Friend, who does so much for his constituency and wants the very best for his area.
Local leadership matters: that is what the levelling-up fund, at its core, is all about. It is about backing local projects and initiatives that restore people’s pride in the places they live and work and help to draw in new opportunities and investment. That is why the levelling-up fund is so over-subscribed. Round 2 was exceptionally competitive, with just under £9 billion of bids submitted for £2.1 billion of funding. That meant that we had a lot of high-quality shortlisted bids that we were unable to fund, including Sandwell’s Tipton town centre regeneration bid. It is also why my Department has identified just over £210 million of unallocated departmental budgets that we are using to fund 16 high-quality regeneration projects, including the Tipton town centre bid, announced in today’s Budget.
Wendy Morton
We have not touched on the regeneration of brownfield sites. Does the Minister agree that, particularly in the broader west midlands and Black Country, the levelling-up fund’s use of regeneration funds for brownfield remediation and regeneration is crucial so that we can protect our green belt and build the precious homes that we all want?
Felicity Buchan
As my right hon. Friend alluded to, that is outside my portfolio, but I believe passionately in regeneration and the importance of prioritising brownfield land.
The £210 million that we announced at the Budget today is part of a much wider levelling-up package, which will further level up growth across the UK and spread opportunity everywhere. Other key levelling-up announcements include greater responsibility for local leaders to grow their local economies; over £400 million for new levelling-up partnerships for the 20 areas in England most in need of levelling up; a business rate retention expansion to more areas in the next Parliament; trailblazer devolution deals for the west midlands and Greater Manchester combined authorities, which include single multi-year settlements for the next spending review, alongside a commitment to negotiate further devolution deals in England; 12 investment zones across the UK, including in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and £8.8 billion over the next five-year funding period for a second round of the city region sustainable transport settlements.
The Government are investing a lot more funding in West Bromwich, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West alluded, specifically in Tipton and Wednesbury. The Black Country region benefited from over £217 million of local growth funding between 2014 and 2021. A few projects in my hon. Friend’s constituency received direct funding, including the Opus Blueprint project in Wednesbury, which received £2.5 million.
Today, funding was announced for the £20 million Tipton town centre regeneration project, which will be a huge boost to the town. I thank my hon. Friend for his work on that. Meanwhile, West Bromwich, which sits within Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, has received towns fund deals for three towns, totalling £67.5 million—£25 million for West Bromwich, £23.5 million for Smethwick and £19 million for Rowley Regis. Beyond West Bromwich, levelling-up funds have been awarded for towns fund and future high street deals in Dudley, Wolverhampton and Walsall.
We recognise the need to improve connectivity in West Bromwich and the wider Black Country, and the £54 million for the reopening of two train stations at Darlaston and Willenhall will do just that. We have also allocated £25.9 million of capital funding to the West Midlands Combined Authority, including £13.6 million towards the Dudley-Brierley Hill metro extension. We recognise the importance that it will have in enabling faster access to the wider region.
Beyond Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities funds, Historic England has partnered with Sandwell to deliver an up to £3.6 million heritage regeneration scheme in Wednesbury, which will bring funding and opportunities to a large number of local shop owners, organisations and visitors. Today, the Department announced a new partnership programme, which will work with places in England that are in need of levelling up. I am pleased to say that Sandwell is among the places we will work with. That will involve extensive local engagement, data gathering and focus groups to form a picture of a place and its challenges and opportunities. Through that process of engagement and analysis, obstacles to levelling up will be identified. That will be used to develop policy interventions to tackle those obstacles.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills talked about the trailblazer deal, and I want to spend a few moments on that, because I think it is significant. I am delighted to highlight the earlier announcement that the Government and the West Midlands Combined Authority have concluded negotiations on the trailblazer, deeper devolution deal, transferring more control and influence over the levers of economic growth and levelling up. The deal equips the Mayor and the combined authority with additional tools to realise their goal for their residents and businesses, and demonstrates levelling up in action.
For the first time outside of London, decisions about the affordable homes programme will be devolved, boosting housing supply, complemented by the devolution of £150 million for regeneration developments on brownfield land. The commitments in the deal will help to harness the commercial potential of public land in areas such as Tipton, Wednesbury, through to Brierley Hill and across the west midlands. The deal will also support wider levelling up through its business-retention and skills budget agreements.
Before I sum up, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East asked specifically about her proposal for the levelling-up fund round 2. I am afraid that, today, I cannot get into the specifics of individual bids, as she will understand, but I am happy to sit down with her and the relevant Minister.
Taken together, I believe that the policies and the political will are there to make levelling up a reality in every single part of the country, including, clearly, Tipton and Wednesbury. I want to work with Members across this House so that we can continue to press forward with this agenda. That is why I am glad to be the Minister at this debate.
The Government are committed to our levelling-up mission on local leadership, transferring more control and influence over the levers of economic growth and levelling up to local, empowered and accountable leaders, such as our Mayor Andy Street. The WMCA has also committed to greater scrutiny, including scrutiny by residents, by constituent councils, when requested, and by local MPs at regular sessions.
Together, we can transform the fortunes of places such as Tipton and Wednesbury. We can write overlooked towns and cities back into our national story, and we can shape a better, more prosperous future for our constituents across the country. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West for calling this important debate, and for all his work on behalf of his constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Local Housing Allowance
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Local Housing Allowance.
I am grateful and delighted to be able to lead the debate, and to do so under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Elliott. I am glad to be here.
Housing represents a large cost to many people, but it is becoming increasingly unaffordable. The aim of the local housing allowance, of course, is to help those renting in the private sector, but it is becoming less and less effective because the level of support is increasingly out of step with the actual housing market. Since 2012, LHA rates have been decoupled from the 30th percentile of rents. Some hon. and right hon. Members will perhaps remember when it was coupled to the lower half of the market, rather than the lower third, but there we are—it is now the 30th percentile. Decoupled, it is instead uprated by consumer prices index inflation, 1% or even 0%.
That, in turn, has led to a growing gap between the actual rents that people pay and the amount of housing support that they can receive. It was therefore very welcome —but long overdue—when, in March 2020, in response to the pandemic, the Government increased LHA rates to realign them with the lowest 30% of rents at September 2019. Suddenly, we were returned to the status quo ante. However, that relief was very short lived: inexplicably, the Government froze LHA again in November 2020. Indeed, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the policy was
“arbitrary and unfair, and its consequences will only become more bizarre over time.”
Freezing the LHA has two broad consequences. First, the rise in rents is decreasing the amount of housing in the private rented sector available to those claiming housing benefits. Secondly, the support that low-income renters get with housing costs will be related not to the current level of rents in their area but rather to the rents of 2019. A moment ago, I used the word “inexplicably.” However, the Government’s thinking might well be quite obvious. Most commentators see it plainly as a short-term money-saving exercise—short term and short sighted, as the annual cost of maintaining the LHA level in cash terms was forecast to be £840 million in 2022-23, which would gradually fall to £345 million by 2025-26.
The alleged saving is illusory when one factors in the wider economic and social damage that the decision is causing. Previous analysis from Crisis showed that the annual cost of restoring LHA to the 30th percentile would be around £1.1 billion. That would in turn lift 32,000 people out of poverty and save a further 6,000 people from homelessness, which would produce savings of £5.6 billion—a cost of £1.1 billion, a saving of £5.6 billion. Some £5.5 billion of that saving would be on homelessness services, and £124 million on temporary accommodation. Over a three-year period, after the costs are deducted, that would save the UK Government £2.1 billion. That is why one must take the broader costs into account.
That sum is itself not to be discounted—it is a large amount of money—but most importantly, restoring the LHA to the previous level would save vulnerable people and their children from untold misery. That is the real gain. I would say it is unnecessary misery—unless, God forbid, we think that the cut in LHA is in fact an arm of disciplining the poor. Despite that evidence and the growing pressure on the Government, it was bitterly disappointing to see them maintain a freeze on LHA in the 2022 autumn statement. Although I listened very carefully to the Chancellor’s jolly festival of optimism at lunchtime, I did not detect a single word of comfort about LHA.
Despite the housing benefit freeze, rents continue to rise. In the 12 months to January 2023, private rents, in Wales at least, increased by 3.9%, the highest annual percentage change since records began in 2010. The damage being done is quite clear. The Bevan Foundation reports that in the last month only six of the 22 local authorities in Wales had any properties available at or below the LHA rates. The actual numbers are stunningly bad. During the first two weeks of February, only 32 properties in Wales were available at or below LHA rates—just 32 properties for the entire country and just 1.2% of the properties advertised on the formal rental market. In my local authority of Gwynedd, 187 properties were advertised for rent, but only 10 were fully covered by the LHA rates. People should remember that Gwynedd is—if Members will allow me this term—one of the “better” areas, with 10. Many places have none whatsoever.
There is broad consensus across the housing and homelessness support sector in favour of unfreezing the LHA and restoring it to the 30th percentile. Voices such as Crisis, the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the National Residential Landlords Association and Welsh anti-poverty organisations—such as the Bevan Foundation, which did the research I mentioned earlier—say that, and I echo those calls. The Chancellor should unfreeze local housing allowance and uprate it to the 30th percentile of market rents as we begin to address the unaffordability of housing.
Last year, I asked the Government in a parliamentary question whether they had made an impact assessment of the decision not to uprate the LHA and about the impact on the proportion of homes available in Wales that would be covered in full by LHA. I was told that no such assessment had been made. That is making policy in the dark. If we do not know what we are dealing with, how can we make policy? I ask the Minister, given that the growing gap between real rents and LHA rates in Wales is plain to see, how the Government can justify not making such an assessment and whether she will do so? That seems to me to be an obvious step to take.
Such an assessment might highlight the way that the LHA freeze perpetuates homelessness and housing insecurity. The shortfall means that people claiming housing benefit are forced to move into properties that are not fully covered by what they receive from the DWP and, often, properties of terrifyingly poor quality. Many hon. Members will have seen the sorts of cases we get—I get them regularly—that involve houses that are essentially unfit for people to live in.
Crisis Wales has said that
“too many people and families are being forced into homelessness because housing benefit simply isn’t sufficient to keep a roof over their heads”.
It is a fundamental failure. Policy in Practice found that for every 10% increase in the number of households experiencing a gap between the LHA rate and rent, the proportion of households in temporary accommodation will rise by 1%. The cause and the effect are quite obvious, I think; there is a congruity and a causality there. There are just more people in temporary accommodation.
Between 2015 and 2022, the number of households that required assistance to avoid homelessness in Wales increased by approximately 9,000, while the estimated number of rough sleepers increased by 69%. The evidence is there if the Government choose to look; if they choose otherwise, and not to look—if they choose to pass on the other side of the road—they will of course not see it. The Bevan Foundation also notes that it is not a coincidence that this all took place at the same time as LHA rates were frozen. Even now, we can see a slow increase in homelessness, with 158 more people in temporary accommodation in Wales between November and December of last year. That is in just one month. I say again that that is at a substantial and unneeded cost to the public purse.
I have another question for the Minister. Will she now assess how much local authorities could save in housing people who are homeless by unfreezing LHA rates, to enable them to sustain tenancies? That is an obvious piece of research, and the answers would be illuminating.
Housing insecurity can also lead to further pressure on other essential costs, such as energy and food, with serious consequences for mental and physical health. That is likely to be one contributing factor in the shocking statistic that 61% of people in Wales report that their mental health is negatively affected by their financial position. The LHA freeze means that emergency discretionary funding, such as discretionary housing payments or DHPs, are being used to plug the gap. Again, Welsh local authorities spent the highest sum of their allocated DHPs in 2020-21. The latest data show they are on course to do the same this year, with a 4% increase in the number of DHPs being spent on local housing allowance shortfalls.
That is all in the context of austerity, of course, as the reduction in DHP funding available to Welsh local authorities in the last financial year amounted to a 27% cut, which follows a reduction in the previous year of 18%. The cuts resulted in the Welsh Government topping up DHP funds last year by £4.1 million. That is the knock-on effect. I again put it to the Minister that there is a fundamental problem when local authorities are using their emergency allocations, and the Welsh Government have to top up the funds due to successive cuts. Does the Minister think that is sustainable in the long term? I do not think so, but I am interested in her opinion.
The LHA freeze is not the only concern. When it comes to the calculation of LHA, it is important to note that the rates sometimes do not accurately reflect market conditions, particularly at the very local level. At present, there is no obligation on landlords to share information on rents they charge, which makes it difficult to secure a true overview of the local rental market. Furthermore, are the broad rental market areas used to calculate each area’s LHA truly representative? They can encompass large areas with multiple rental markets within them. The gradient of change in the markets might be extremely steep, and might not take hotspots of high rent into account.
For example, in my constituency of Arfon we have Bangor University and a student population of 9,000, which is very large relative to the around 20,000 people in the local area of Bangor itself. There might be a severe hotspot there. In more rural parts of north-west Wales, holiday lets might have a significant effect. In the south-east, the removal of the Severn bridge tolls has increased rents in places near the border, such as Newport. People live in the cheaper parts in Wales and drive over to Bristol for their jobs.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentions Bristol, where this is a massive issue, which is the reason I have come to this debate. A recent inquiry by the Bureau for Investigative Journalism and a local newspaper, The Bristol Cable, found that there were virtually no properties with LHA rates available in Bristol, as he said is the case in his patch. I share his concerns; it is happening everywhere.
Hywel Williams
I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. As I said earlier, this affects the entire UK. Indeed, she might be clairvoyant, because I am going to refer that particular point in Wales. My concern, of course, is with Wales, where I know what is happening best. In Arfon, as I said, we have Bangor University and the holiday lets market, and then we have the Severn bridge.
I have asked the Department for Work and Pensions if it plans to undertake an assessment of the accuracy of the mechanism and metrics used to calculate the rate at which the local housing allowance is set and allocated in Wales, and the broad rental market area boundaries, if they are relevant. I was told that those boundaries are kept under review by the rent officers in Wales, and if they decide that a boundary should change, they can submit a review to the Secretary of State for consideration. I ask the Minister: have there been any applications by rent officers in Wales to request a review of broad rental market areas in Wales? I would be interested to know. I believe the BRMA mechanism should be devolved. Housing is already a devolved matter, as are other welfare services. There is a congruence between them, and a reasonable case can be made for them to be under the same authority. We could then redesign the mechanism to be far more responsive to local circumstances.
The local housing allowance is just one plank of the large-scale reform of the housing market. That is why Plaid Cymru secured the inclusion of a welcome commitment by the Labour Government in Wales to introduce proposals for a fundamental right to adequate housing for Welsh citizens, as well as an explanation of the role that a system of fair rents could play in making the private rental market affordable for local people on local incomes. There are also new approaches for making housing affordable. The devolution of housing benefit has a key role to play in that process. Had we control of the funding of housing benefit, we would then do things differently, such as repurposing some of the money into building more social housing. That would allow Wales to move from a model of subsidy to a rent system that subsidises supply. It is a straightforward move.
Welsh Labour has committed, in the co-operation agreements with Plaid Cymru, to advocate for the devolution of the administration of benefits. I asked the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), if he would be prepared to pledge that. He said that I was inviting him to venture into choppy waters. I think that is quite true, but I will just bowl this one at my colleague on the Labour Front Bench, the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck): will the Labour party in Westminster consider supporting devolving LHA to Wales, as Welsh Labour Members in the Senedd have asked?
To conclude, it is vital that the Government take action to end the housing crisis. Affordable, decent housing should be a right for everyone. Affordability is central to housing stability, and can then reduce stress and increase self-esteem, wellbeing, life satisfaction and a sense of security for people. It can also alleviate crowding, further reducing stress and the spread of infectious diseases. I call on the Government to take action now to address the affordability crisis by unfreezing the local housing allowance.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Elliott. I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on securing this debate.
On Monday, in Committee Room 5, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation launched its research on an essentials guarantee. It has tested public opinion and worked out the cost of absolutely basic, non-housing essentials in Britain today: food and non-alcoholic drink, electricity and gas, water, clothes and shoes, communications, travel, and sundries such as cleaning materials. That is the lot, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that the cost of all that for a single person is £120 a week, which is £35 a week more than universal credit from next month. That is just for the minimum, basic essentials. It is absolutely clear why so many people have to go to food banks.
Quite a lot of people do not get the full rate of universal credit because of deductions of one kind or another. In addition to that, because of the subject we are debating, a growing number of people have to take money out of their inadequate universal credit payments in order to pay the rent. Local housing allowance often stops people on universal credit being paid housing support anywhere near to the amount of their rent. It is making life impossible.
Since LHA was frozen in 2020, after temporarily being restored to the 30th percentile, as the hon. Member for Arfon pointed out—it used to be the 50th before 2011—rent has risen sharply across the country. DWP data shows that by last August, 57% of private rented households in receipt of housing support had a shortfall between their benefits and the rent. That proportion is going up.
In July 2022, the Work and Pensions Committee published a report, “The cost of living”, which highlighted how support through the LHA was not keeping up with rising rents. The fact that housing support and current rents are so out of kilter—the hon. Member for Arfon referred to this—creates what the Institute for Fiscal Studies described as “bizarre consequences”. It gives an example, one of which affects the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), stating that
“the 30th percentile of rents in Bristol is £100 more than in Newbury. But the amount of housing support that those who live in Bristol can receive is £12.50 less than those who live in Newbury.”
That makes no sense. The system has got completely out of touch with the reality.
Crisis told the Select Committee about research with Alma Economics before the pandemic, showing that a return to the 30th percentile would benefit the public purse by over £2 billion, because it would avoid councils resorting to more costly temporary accommodation.
The hon. Member for Arfon rightly made this point. In its briefing, the National Residential Landlords Association says that we should press the Minister, and I want to join the hon. Member in doing so. Have the Government worked out how much local authorities could save in temporary accommodation costs if the local housing allowance was back up at the 30th percentile?
The impacts are getting more severe. Shelter has warned this year that the
“continued freeze on housing benefits is pushing more and more private renters towards homelessness”.
The number approaching Shelter with rent arrears is up 30%. Crisis says that the
“affordability gap is driving homelessness”,
and reports that evictions from the private sector have more than doubled in the last year.
Government figures last month showed the first increase for four years in the number of rough sleepers, and in London there was a 34% increase. The Government say they are committed to ending rough sleeping, but their policies, and particularly this policy, are increasing rough sleeping.
People in households with a disabled person are more likely to be hit by LHA shortfalls. Paul Sylvester, head of housing operations at Bristol City Council, told our Committee in 2021 that half the households they saw with a shortfall included a disabled person. They were increasingly seeing disabled people forced to use their disability benefits to
“cover the rent top-up, rather than what they are meant for”.
Discretionary housing payments can be used by local councils to support households at risk of homelessness. This financial year, the DHP budget has been cut by 29%. Shelter has said—echoing again the hon. Member for Arfon—that a number of councils
“appear on the brink of running out of funding”.
There are 31 English councils that had spent over three quarters of their budget on DHP before winter began. They included traditionally low-rent areas such as Derbyshire Dales, Leicester, and Hinckley and Bosworth, which all spent over 80% of their annual allocation in the first six months. The east midlands, where they are all located, had the highest rate of private rent inflation in the last year, at just over 5%. In the north-east—your area, Ms Elliott—Sunderland, Gateshead and Northumberland all spent more than 90% of their DHP allocation by the end of September.
Sadly, today’s Budget has done absolutely nothing to help. The Government must stop turning a blind eye to such a very serious problem and recognise that local housing allowance must go up, at least to the 30th percentile. Once it has gone up to that, it needs to be kept there.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on securing this Westminster Hall debate. Northern Ireland has a totally different system, so I do not expect the Minister to answer any questions about Northern Ireland. This is a devolved matter on which the Assembly takes decisions. However, I want to support the hon. Member for Arfon by illustrating how the local housing allowance is causing similar difficulties in Northern Ireland. I put on the record that I concur with and fully support his comments on the difficulties in his constituency and in Wales, as well as remarks of the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) on the difficulties in England.
Housing allocation is done differently in Northern Ireland. The principle of shortfall housing allowance is a UK-wide issue, which is why I am here to support the comments. Almost 30,000 private renters in receipt of local housing allowance in Northern Ireland are facing a shortfall in their monthly rents. It is having a real effect. Among the biggest issues raised with my office are those of benefits and housing. If an issue combines both benefits and housing, that causes real difficulty. That is where I am.
I read an article this week that said that almost three quarters of housing benefit claimants living in private rented accommodation in Belfast are being charged more than their housing benefit allowance. This is replicated in Newtownards, the mainstay of my constituency, with a lack of one or two-bed properties meaning that people have to rent three-bed properties, which costs a lot for those on a smaller wage. In Northern Ireland and particularly in my constituency, rental accommodation costs far outstrip income and wages.
The local housing allowance in Ards is £83.53 per week, meaning a make-up of around £300 per month for those who rent accommodation. It takes a massive effort to squeeze the shortfall at a time when price rises are putting the pressure on. It is important to say that I recognise that the Government have taken many steps to try to help with the issue of price structures and increases, and I recognise the many good things that the Government have done. However, I think there needs to be a focus on this issue in particular, and I concur with the comments made by the hon. Member for Arfon and the right hon. Member for East Ham.
It is unsustainable for my constituents to have to make up £300 when the cost of gas and electric has trebled. Further information shows that in a workgroup covering Dunmurry and Lisburn—both in Northern Ireland—89.5% of claimants have a shortfall between the rent charged by their landlord and the applicable local housing alliance for the property occupied. That massive number indicates that this is an issue. Local housing allowance is used to calculate the level of housing benefit available to those living in the private rental sector. Over half of low-income renters—some 51%—surveyed across Great Britain in November said that their rent had increased. Research by Crisis on the cost of living provides a snapshot of the devastating impact of unaffordable housing. The hon. Member for Arfon illustrated that very well and evidentially in his contribution.
It is little wonder that we are in a housing crisis. In the past year alone, rents in Northern Ireland have risen at their fastest rate in 16 years, and have increased by an average of 11% across Great Britain. In the last year, listed rents in Scotland have increased by 13%, and by 15% in Wales. These are massive increases to try to keep track with. It has led to people applying for affordable social housing, which has in turn led to the Northern Ireland housing statistics for 2020-21 showing that some 44,000 people were on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive waiting list as of 31 March 2021. Of those 44,000, just over 30,000 are in housing stress. That means that three quarters of those people are in housing stress through attempting to address the issue of rent.
I will conclude, as I want to give the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) the chance to participate. For me it is abundantly clear that if we address the issue by making the local housing allowance come close to covering basic rent, we will allow those who are working and able to cover a small difference to come off the list, thereby allowing those who need full rent coverage to access social housing. Families are under pressure and inflation has risen, along with the price of groceries, energy and fuel. The price of every single item has increased. I heard on TV this morning that every foodstuff has increased by between 17% and 19% in the last few months. The rates will increase again this year. That automatically results in an increase in outgoings, but the incomings simply cannot meet the cost. That is a fact.
I agree with the assessment made by Crisis, which did a case study of a lady who could make her rent payments but could not afford to heat her home or eat three times a day. This is the depth of crisis that homelessness statistics do not show—those who have walls but do not have a home. That has to be addressed.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on securing this very important debate.
Wales is facing a housing crisis because there is a shortage of affordable properties that people can purchase or rent. That shortage forces many low-income households to move into a property that they cannot afford, risking financial hardship, or into a property that is in poor condition, risking ill health, or to seek assistance from local authority homelessness services. The local housing allowance, introduced in 2008, is the amount of housing benefit, or the housing element of universal credit, available to those who are renting from private landlords. The amount of support provided is based on the area in which the individual lives and the number of bedrooms they require. There are a number of LHA determining factors, including allowing a tenant to rent in the cheapest third, 30th percentile, of properties within a market area, which depends on the location of the property—Wales is divided into 23 broad rental market areas—and on the number of bedrooms to which a household is entitled.
However, despite the good intentions behind the LHA, the scheme has been the subject of much criticism and controversy. In many areas, the LHA does not cover the full cost of renting a property, leaving individuals and families in a precarious financial situation. The issues have recently been exacerbated, as LHA rates have been frozen since 2020 at the level of 2018-19 private rental rates. Research by the Bevan Foundation found that in my Neath constituency, 51 properties were advertised for rent in February 2023, but not one property was covered by the LHA rate. Furthermore, the gap between market rents and the LHA rate in my constituency is £95.93 for a one-bedroom property, £113.33 for a two-bedroom property, £146.24 for a three-bedroom property and £251.45 for a four-bedroom property. That means that many people in Neath face the prospect of homelessness, with some being forced to choose between paying their rent and putting food on the table. That is an unacceptable situation that needs to be addressed urgently.
One solution to the problem is to increase the LHA rate for the area. That would provide much-needed relief to those who are struggling to pay their rent and would help to prevent homelessness. The Welsh Government have already taken steps to address this issue with the introduction of the Welsh housing quality standard and the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. However, more needs to be done. The UK Government must recognise the unique challenges facing areas such as Neath and take action to ensure that the LHA rates are sufficient to cover the cost of renting a property. That not only would help those who are struggling to make ends meet but would have wider economic benefits by reducing the number of people who are at risk of homelessness and supporting the local rental market.
However, low-income tenants may face more barriers when looking for properties in the private rental sector, and many may find them difficult or impossible to overcome. Examples are requirements for deposits of more than one month’s rent, guarantors, credit checks, minimum income checks, and professional-only tenants. The Bevan Foundation found only 32 properties in Wales at or below the LHA rate. Twenty-three also had one or more of the barriers that I just mentioned. To put it another way, only nine properties fully covered by the LHA did not require one or more of the additional qualifications. Seven were in Cardiff, one in Ceredigion and one in Rhondda Cynon Taf; there was none in my constituency of Neath.
The local housing allowance is a vital scheme that provides much-needed financial assistance to those who are struggling to pay their rent, but current rates of LHA are inadequate in many areas, including my constituency of Neath. It is time for the UK Government to take action to address the issue, and to ensure that LHA rates are sufficient to cover the cost of renting a property. The Chancellor could have used his Budget today to uplift LHA rates to the contemporary 30th percentile, providing housing security and decreasing mental and physical illness among those struggling to pay their rent. By not taking action, the Chancellor has increased pressure on local authorities, which will drive up the use of temporary accommodation. He has not prevented homelessness, not supported the local rental market and not provided a brighter future for the people of Neath, Wales and the UK in their home.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this afternoon’s proceedings, Ms Elliott.
As others have done, I commend the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for securing the debate, which is short but none the less important. We have had an interesting discussion, with thoughtful contributions from the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Neath (Christina Rees).
The debate of the hon. Member for Arfon allows my party to place on the record our asks on local housing allowance rates. For example, we want to see LHA increased in line with average rents. Likewise, we have called on the British Government to support renters by suspending the shared accommodation rate for under-35s and care leavers, which I believe remains a massive social injustice.
As we know, in November the Secretary of State confirmed that LHA rents for the 2023-24 financial year
“will be maintained in cash terms at the elevated rates agreed for 2020-21.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 24WS.]
My party has pushed the British Government to ensure that the approach to LHA rates does not go back to that taken by the pre-pandemic cuts, which made the private sector totally unaffordable for people in receipt of benefits in some areas, especially when we take cognisance of the long-term shortage of social housing that blights many of my constituents. We cannot have a conversation such as this without recognising the enormous damage done to social housing by the right-to-buy policy and the failure to build more social housing after that.
Ministers’ decision to maintain LHA rates at cash terms in 2023-24 means a further freeze for private renters and places additional and needless pressure on tenants, which in turn adds to pressure on the discretionary housing payment funding pot. Through discretionary housing payments, my colleagues in the Scottish Government are supporting tenants who are under severe financial pressure. In reality, the Scottish Government are plugging some of the gaps caused by the crumbling of the UK social security system here in Westminster.
To highlight one particular example, since the introduction of the punitive bedroom tax, the SNP Government in Scotland have spent £350 million on mitigating it. That has been done by way of discretionary housing payments, which in effect means that the bedroom tax is not in operation north of the border. The hon. Member for Arfon will correct me if I am wrong, but the situation in Labour-run Wales means that the bedroom tax is not necessarily mitigated—something their colleagues in Scottish Labour often forget to mention in Holyrood.
Obviously it is great that SNP Ministers have chosen to act to protect people from the bedroom tax in Scotland, but it is just one of the many areas where the devolution framework comes under strain, as spending decisions in Scotland are frankly taken to paper over the cracks of poor welfare policy made here in London. The inescapable reality is that every penny we spend on the discretionary housing payment to deal with Westminster’s heartless social security agenda is a penny less spent on devolved competences such as education, transport and health.
In summary, Ministers must do better and this Government must act urgently to improve some of the problems with local housing allowance that I and others have outlined today. Failure to do so, I am afraid, only highlights the need for Scottish independence, and for decisions about Scotland to be taken in Scotland—not to languish in the Whitehall in-trays of Tory Ministers the people of Scotland did not vote for.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond for the Opposition under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on securing this important debate. This is a niche issue for many people, yet it is so incredibly important. Rents are the single largest item in most families’ budgets. Not being able to pay the rent has the consequence of forcing families into poverty and also risks homelessness, as we have heard—I will return to that point in a minute.
I wish that, just occasionally, we could have a debate such as this with more than one Department present—it would be a good experiment and brilliant to have that opportunity. It is absolutely impossible to consider local housing allowances in isolation from housing policy. The fact that the housing market is so fundamentally broken is driving the crisis in rents and unaffordability, and therefore the pressure on the local housing allowance. The attempt to bear down on the local housing allowance drives up homelessness and has consequences for other Government Departments. It would be good to be able to hold two Ministers to account for the policies they pursue and their two different agendas, which usually—and in this case—involve a toxic pass-the-parcel game of responsibility and blame, with consequences for both.
As we have heard, the Government have accepted the need to uprate benefits in line with inflation this year—indeed, they have been proud of that fact. I do not think that should be a cause for congratulation. It should be the most absolutely fundamental principle of social security policy, yet they completely fail to accept that that same principle should apply to the local housing allowance. I would like the Minister to explain exactly why in this one area of policy, which affects the largest item of a family’s budget, the Government do not seem to believe that inflation exists. Of course, inflation does exist and, as we particularly heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), rents are soaring across the country, but probably most severely in London.
There are two consequences. First, over 800,000 households in the private rented sector face a shortfall between their rent and their local housing allowance. Some 57% of all universal credit households in the private rented sector have that shortfall. Secondly, dipping back into the issue of housing policy, it forces households into the absolute worst end of the private rented market. In this place, we discuss what has happened to households stuck in the poorest quality housing and the conditions that people are forced into if they are concentrated at the bottom end of the market, even if they can get it, have been a big media theme over the course of this winter.
Although we are discussing the freeze that has happened, in particular since 2020, this is also not a new phenomenon. Since the Government reduced the LHA from the 50th percentile to the 30th, there has been a continuing series of freezes, of which this is only the most recent. It was all based on the belief that the setting of the LHA levels would be bound in itself to influence rents, because it was understood or believed that such a large proportion of the private rented sector was funded by it. That was only ever partially true, or only true in some places, and always failed to recognise that even in a broad market rental area, there are different housing markets, and what applies to one part of the private rented market will not apply to others.
We know that the blind spot over the local housing allowance uprating can be seen in the homelessness statistics, as well as being felt by tenants in the shortfall between actual rents and the support available. There is an average monthly shortfall between rent and local housing allowance of £100 a month. It is indisputably true that the shortfalls are driving tenants to lose their homes. The end of a private rented tenancy is the single largest contributor to homelessness almost everywhere in the country.
David Linden
Does the hon. Member agree that the Government have to look at the picture in the round? When someone is evicted from their home, it is ultimately the state that picks up the cost. We should consider local housing allowance a preventive spending measure and the Government are short-sighted on the issue.
Ms Buck
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that homelessness is a cost on the central Government budget and on local authority budgets as well.
We have seen homelessness soar. Rough sleeping is up by 74% since 2010 and by 26% in the last year; there has been an 83% rise in the number of children who are now living in temporary accommodation as a result of homelessness. One in 23 children in London is now homeless. The squeeze on local housing allowances is undoubtedly a major factor driving that situation.
I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to discretionary housing payments, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham has made clear, they make only a tiny contribution towards the total cost of budget shortfalls. Those payments have been cut by one fifth in 2021-22, and again this year. In any event, they are restricted in various ways, including by the fact that they are only ever meant to be temporary, so they are not, and never can be, the answer to the fall in local housing allowance.
The poorest, the most vulnerable and those with the least bargaining power in a toughly competitive private rented market, among them families with hundreds of thousands of children between them, are forced to deal with evictions, with frequent moves, and with all the disruption that homelessness causes to education, employment and caring allowances.
As Policy in Practice demonstrated in an important research report yesterday, the broken housing market also drags a substantial number of higher earners and higher-rate taxpayers into means-tested benefits such as universal credit via the housing allowances system, which is a completely unintended consequence of the freeze.
Investment in social housing—a way of ensuring that those with the lowest incomes can enjoy secure and affordable homes—is by far the best solution to this crisis. A better managed private rented sector would also be good for tenants. We have been promised action on that for years but we are yet to see it. All of these things would be better for the public purse, too. In the meantime, freezes in the local housing allowance make no sense whatsoever and only serve to make a bad situation worse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I thank the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for calling this debate on the local housing allowance, which provides housing support for universal credit and housing benefit claimants in the private rented sector. I thank you, Ms Elliott, for presiding over this important debate; it is my first time here, too.
The Government fully recognise the importance of affordable, decent quality housing, as the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) pointed out, which is why we have invested significantly to support those on low incomes, including private renters. All constituency MPs are focused on this issue, as has been alluded to this afternoon. We are grateful to our excellent caseworkers who support us and keep us informed about what is going on in our constituencies. I thank all the charities for all the positive work that they do in the sector. I will be visiting further innovative pilots and interventions on Monday to look and learn and see how we can really help the most vulnerable to progress, including some of the groups that have been mentioned this afternoon.
Acting on childcare, as we have done today, helping people to progress and earn more and helping people with energy costs will help with the wider challenges that many of our colleagues have spoken about this afternoon and all the constituents who have been impacted. The Government spent almost £30 billion supporting renters with housing costs in 2021-22. More widely, the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement a significant wide-ranging package of support to help low-income households struggling with the increased cost of living, which will of course include housing.
We recognise and acknowledge that rents are increasing. However, the challenging fiscal environment does mean that difficult decisions were necessary to ensure that support is targeted effectively. That support provides stability and certainty for households through the further cost of living payments for the most vulnerable for 2023-24, which I was pleased to bring forward myself. Around 8 million households on eligible means-tested benefits will get a further £900 pounds in payments in 2023-24.
Hywel Williams
Does the Minister accept the argument that I and other Members have made—that doing something about the local housing allowance would save the Government money in the round?
Mims Davies
I appreciate and understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and I will make some further comments shortly.
Today’s Budget has focused on more help so that people can be better off, to raise living standards and to improve lives. To the hon. Member for Westminster North and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), I say that this is a challenge that I am working on and that I am keen to rise to—across Government, as the hon. Lady says, and of course with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I say to anybody struggling today, whether with housing costs or other matters that are impacting them, that there is an opportunity to find out more on the benefits calculator website, in case they are missing out on any extra support. There is also the Help for Households website and the Job Help website. Of course, as has been mentioned, the benefit cap, working age benefits and disability benefits will also be uprated by 10.1% for 2023-24.
The household support fund extension provides an extra £1 billion of funding, including the Barnett impact. I met many local authorities yesterday afternoon to see how they are targeting that support—particularly on housing needs and costs, white goods and other things that might affect household budgets. The scheme will be backed with £842 million and will run from 1 April to 31 March 2024. It is right that devolved Administrations will decide how to allocate that Barnett funding. As we have heard, local authorities are expected to support those households most in need.
One of the Government’s key aims is to support people into work and to progress in work where possible. That approach is based on clear evidence that, for those who can work, particularly where the work is full time, it substantially reduces the risks of poverty. We see real challenges, to which the hon. Member for Westminster North alluded: more single households, more single parents and family breakdown. The support that we are giving, because of global impact, means that the supply is all the more challenging. I agree with the hon. Lady that wider issues around cost and quality, which very much concern me, mean that this policy, the growing need and the focus are only getting larger. I agree that, in Government, the issue is very much about more than me; I am sorry that I am not enough this afternoon, but I will try to do my best.
Let me turn to some of the points made by hon. Members. On the decision to freeze, we recognise that rents are increasing. However, the challenging fiscal environment has led to where we are, and it is important that we target effectively. The Secretary of State will review the rates and the standard process annually. The hon. Member for Arfon raised the issue of quality. Discretionary housing payments can be made to help claimants with the costs associated with moving to a new home if there is a quality issue. Everyone rightly has the ability to get a safe and secure home. Landlords are key; we need them to come forward, to stay in the sector and to want to be part of the solution where they have already met the decent homes standard. Quality housing remains a priority for this Government, and of course there is currently a White Paper on that.
Mims Davies
I understand the point. That is why I want the quality to rise, rather than people feeling that they have to move. There is obviously a fall-back position.
The hon. Member for Arfon made a point about the broad rental market rates. Those are determined for Wales by rent officers in Wales. If the rent officers believe —I have just looked again at my local rates—that the boundary needs to be reviewed, as the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned, they can apply to the Secretary of State for change, but no reviews have been submitted by Wales. Local authorities can also request a review by contacting rent officers. It is up to the rent officer whether they will review it, but I think that is an important point for the hon. Member for Arfon to take away.
Obviously, there is the wider cost of living support as regards Welsh and indeed Northern Ireland devolution. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), with his typical empathetic tone and understanding, has brought real care to the debate, as usual. I recognise the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees), because I lived nearby in Neath for many years, and I very much welcomed the Welsh housing standard. I think that is exactly what we should be doing, rather than reducing things. I sense that the right hon. Member for East Ham is keen to come in.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am pleased to hear that she is working across Government on the issue, and I wish her well with that. Can she tell us whether there has been an assessment of how much could be saved in the costs of temporary accommodation if LHA was raised back up to the 30th percentile?
Mims Davies
I hope to come that before I conclude my remarks. On the “no impact assessment” point made by the hon. Member for Arfon, we will publish an equalities analysis to the House of Commons Library, and I know the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) will keenly watch for that. On the recent question regarding shared rooms, there is an issue with the quality of data on room entitlements, so, if the hon. Member for Arfon writes to me, I will share with him further what I can best do to provide that.
David Linden
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I spent a bit of the afternoon reading the Government’s White Paper on health and disability, and have actually been very encouraged by one part of it that talks about the importance of transparency in decision-making processes in the DWP. Will the Minister confirm that there will be a change of culture now in the transparency and publication of some of these things, which, recently, some of us felt to be a bit murky?
Mims Davies
The hon. Gentleman points out the many questions he is asking about transparency, and I welcome that. Where policy is in development, we need to protect it, but, ultimately, if it needs to be transparent, I am very happy, where suitable, to share it.
On the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham and others about temporary accommodation, it is, of course, an important way of ensuring that no family is without a roof over their heads. We are committed to reduce that need for temporary accommodation by preventing homelessness. We are investing £366 million into the homelessness prevention grant to support local authorities to prevent homelessness. The key point, and our main duty, is how best to support people so that they are not in that situation. I very much understand that, and I am keen to respond about how we are trying to do a little more about that.
It is important for Members to understand that the local housing allowance is not intended to cover all rents in all areas. In April 2020, in direct response to the covid-19 pandemic and the influx of new claimants because of the pandemic, we increased local housing rates to the 30th percentile of local market rates, costing nearly £1 billion and giving claimants on average an extra £600 in 2020-21. We have maintained that increase since then, ensuring that all those who benefited from the increase continue to do so.
I recognise that there are circumstances where extra help is needed, which is where we distribute the discretionary housing payments according to local need. Those payments play a critical role in providing support to the most vulnerable households in meeting their housing costs. Since 2010, we have provided nearly £1.6 billion in DHP funding to local authorities.
Of course, the competitive nature of the private rented market is driving up prices, alongside the annual review of LHA rates. I say to the hon. Member for Westminster North and the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham, we are absolutely determined to work around the quality and supply challenges that are ultimately driving that. Overall, the DWP Budget measures today represent £3.5 billion over the next five years to boost workforce participation.
In conclusion—
Mims Davies
I will wind up. I take all the points from hon. Members from all around our wonderful nations today, and I am sorry I cannot tell them any more than that this issue is a very strong focus for me, and that we will continue, I hope, to work together for all our communities.
Hywel Williams
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate; we have heard some very powerful evidence. I thank the Minister for her replies, as well. We will not let this be. Can I also say that other Members would have been here? I neglected to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) would have been here, but she had to attend a family funeral. There is a great deal more interest than we see here in the Chamber.
Written Statements
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
New Loan Guarantees: Support to Ukraine
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
Today, I have laid a departmental minute which describes a new liability the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) are undertaking to support the economic stability of Ukraine following Russia’s invasion in February 2022.
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the statement, except in cases of special urgency.
This departmental minute sets out details of a new liability undertaken by the FCDO. The liability is a further guarantee to support $500 million of additional lending by the World Bank to the Government of Ukraine. This guarantee has an expected maximum exposure of up to £676 million—once interest payments are accounted for. The guarantees will be denominated in USD. I have separately notified the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee and International Development Committee.
FCDO will guarantee both principal and interest repayments from Ukraine to the World Bank. A UK pay-out would be triggered if the Government of Ukraine miss a repayment by 180 days.
The exact length of the liabilities is linked to the terms of the agreed financing between the World Bank, and the Government of Ukraine. The World Bank’s lending is expected to have a maturity of 29 years and a seven-year grace period during which only interest payments are due.
The war has placed huge pressures on Ukraine’s economy, with a large and unmet fiscal deficit emerging across 2023. The international finance community, including development banks like the World Bank, have stepped in and are playing a key role in providing rapid and reliable financial support at a critical time. This guarantee will help the Government pay for essential services like salaries and social services and contribute toward Ukraine’s economic stability.
Ukraine is currently undertaking an IMF programme known as a programme monitoring with board involvement. We continue to engage with the IMF and the Government of Ukraine to assess Ukraine’s willingness and ability to borrow on the terms associated with World Bank lending. We understand that Ukraine will only make use of the UK guarantee if the lending is consistent with advice on debt sustainability and any limits agreed with the IMF.
HM Treasury has approved this guarantee. It is also normal practice that any contingent liabilities should not be incurred until 14 sitting days after Parliament has been notified of the Government’s intention to incur a contingent liability. If any Member of the House has questions or objections, do get in touch.
A copy of the departmental minute has been placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS635]
Health and Disability White Paper
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
I would like to update hon. and right hon. Members on the publication later today of “Transforming Support: The Health and Disability White Paper”.
This White Paper is a significant milestone demonstrating this Government's commitment to ensuring disabled people and people with health conditions can lead independent lives and fulfil their potential. It sets out an ambitious policy reform package that will transform the health and disability benefits system and help disabled people and people with health conditions to start, stay and succeed in work. This will help to deliver the Prime Minister’s priority of growing the economy, creating better paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We set out our case for reform in “Shaping Future Support: The Health and Disability Green Paper”, published in July 2021. During the consultation, we heard from more than 4,500 people and organisations on which proposals we should take forward. From the responses, we know many disabled people want to work and could work, with the right support. Our White Paper responds to those views.
We are proud of our record on disability employment and support. Last year, we surpassed our 2017 manifesto goal to see 1 million more disabled people in work— delivering our manifesto commitment five years earlier than expected. Our ambition remains to close the disability employment gap, and I will set a new disability employment goal.
The measures set out in this White Paper will build upon our achievements, unlock new opportunities, and support people most in need. With low unemployment and more than 1 million vacancies, we are focused on ensuring more people are supported into the workforce so that they can seize the opportunities of work and employers can access the skills they need to grow their businesses.
We will deliver action in these areas in three ways:
First, the Government will transform the future benefits system so it focuses on what people can do, rather than on what they cannot, including removing the work capability assessment (WCA). In our new system, there will be no need to be found to have limited capability for work, or limited capability for work or work-related activity, to receive additional income-related support for a disability or health condition. We will introduce a new universal credit health element that people receiving both personal independence payment (PIP) and universal credit will be entitled to, which will enable people to try work without the fear of losing their benefits. We will also introduce a new personalised approach to employment support and engagement, with the aim of helping people to reach their potential and live a more independent life. We will give people confidence that they will receive support, for as long as it is needed, regardless of whether they are working.
Secondly, we will invest in our employment offer to help more disabled people and people with health conditions start, stay and succeed in work and contribute to a growing economy. Our research shows that 20% of people with limited capability for work-related activity (LCWRA) on universal credit, or who are in the employment and support allowance (ESA) support group, would like to work at some point in the future. We are therefore investing in additional work coach time and tailored support to help disabled people to get the support they need to start work. We will continue to work with employers and the occupational health sector to help more people remain in work and reduce health-related job loss.
Thirdly, we will ensure that people can access the right support at the right time and have a better overall experience when applying for and receiving health and disability benefits. We are doing this by testing new initiatives to make it easier to apply for and receive health and disability benefits. This includes extending the enhanced support service, which offers support for those who find it hardest to navigate the benefits system. We are also testing a severe disability group which means people with the most severe health conditions can benefit from a simplified process without needing to complete a detailed application form or go through an assessment.
Our benefit reform proposals will take time to implement. They will require primary legislation, which we would aim to take forward in the next Parliament. These reforms would then be rolled out, for new claims only, on a staged, geographical basis from no earlier than 2026-27. We would expect the new claims roll-out to be completed within three years—so by 2029 at the earliest—when we would then begin to move the existing caseload on to the new system.
Throughout and beyond the work of this White Paper, we will continue to listen to, and work with, disabled people, organisations, charities, and experts, to ensure the voices of disabled people remain at the heart of delivering action.
I am certain that our White Paper reforms will support more people to reach their full potential and reap the health and wellbeing advantages of work.
[HCWS636]
House of Lords
HIV Transmission
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards their target of eliminating HIV transmission in England by 2030.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare an interest as a patron of the Terence Higgins Trust and vice-chair of the APPG on HIV.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the first HIV Action Plan monitoring and evaluation framework report shows that there is much to celebrate in the progress made since the publication of our HIV action plan in December 2021,
“with under 4,500 people living with undiagnosed HIV infection and extremely high levels of antiretroviral therapy coverage and viral suppression.”
We continue working with our key delivery partners to ensure we remain on track to meet our goals for 2030.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I start with a tribute to the long-standing and deep commitment of Baroness Masham to tackling HIV and AIDS. We will miss her greatly.
The goal of eliminating new HIV transmissions by 2030 will be almost impossible to achieve unless we find the estimated 4,500 people living with undiagnosed HIV. One way of doing this is opt-out testing, whereby blood tests are routinely done in A&E departments checking for HIV and hepatitis B and C. Is my noble friend aware that a pilot scheme in four major cities has already produced 261 new HIV diagnoses in just 10 months? That saves lives, saves money and relieves pressure on the NHS. Given the huge public health and financial benefits, is it not time to expand opt-out HIV testing to all areas with a high HIV prevalence?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. I too would like to pay tribute to the late Baroness Masham, to the work she did with the APPG on HIV and AIDS, to her work as a disability campaigner and to her career as a paralympic athlete. She will be sadly missed.
I agree that the preliminary results of the pilot are promising. We will be considering the full evidence from the first year of the programme alongside the data on progress towards our ambition of ending new HIV transmissions in England by 2030, in order to decide whether further to expand opt-out testing in areas with high HIV prevalence—that is, those with more than five cases per 1,000 people.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord said and I too pay tribute to Baroness Masham, who, right from the beginning, was a great and very effective campaigner on HIV and AIDS. One of her concerns was the unacceptable stigma suffered by those with HIV, in spite of all the medical advances made since the 1980s. Will the Government initiate a new drive to combat such stigma? They might even consider calling it “Sue Masham’s campaign”.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his excellent question. I agree with him; it is an excellent idea and I will take it back to the department.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests, and in particular to my role as a patron of the Terrence Higgins Trust. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, opt-out HIV testing has played an important role in tracking down people diagnosed with HIV who are not receiving care. However, the Elton John AIDS Foundation’s social impact bond found that even more success was achieved through HIV clinics’ audit and recall system. Therefore, will the Minister take action to ensure that HIV clinics are specifically funded to undertake audit and recall, to ensure that everyone living with HIV is receiving the treatment they deserve?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his excellent question. I absolutely agree that it is very important that we keep data for those with HIV. As part of the Government’s HIV action plan, NHS England has expanded opt-out HIV testing in accident and emergency departments in areas with high levels of HIV diagnosis and prevalence. It is a proven and effective way to identify new HIV cases, in line with the guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, as a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group, I know that Baroness Masham supported people with HIV long before it was popular to do so, and she never, ever gave up on them.
In its first 100 days, the opt-out scheme has cost £2.2 million and has saved the NHS between £6 million and £8 million. It has taken us 10 years to get to this very cost-effective intervention. Do the Government now understand that there is a robust case for rolling this out not just to very high prevalence areas but to high prevalence areas? In very high prevalence areas, the length of stay of a newly diagnosed patient has been reduced from 29 days to 2.5 days. All round, there are savings to be made for the NHS by doing this.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. We are considering the full evidence from the first year of opt-out testing, alongside the data on progress towards our ambition of ending new HIV transmissions in England by 2030, in order to decide whether to expand this programme to areas other than those with high HIV prevalence. We will also share the findings from the opt-out testing programme with local health systems to inform local decisions on expansion.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the drug PrEP is very effective in preventing HIV transmissions. What are the Government therefore doing to ensure that it is available to those who need it, and when will it be available? I too fully support the opt-out clinics; they are making significant savings and I urge the Government to expand them across the country.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. We know that the HIV prevention drug PrEP is extremely effective at preventing HIV transmission. We are developing a plan to improve access to PrEP for key groups and in settings outside of sexual health services, as part of our HIV action plan commitments.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the late Baroness Masham; she will be much missed for her work and effectiveness not just in this area but in many others too.
Following on from the Minister’s answer to the last question, I think we all acknowledge that the great game- changer in the prevention of HIV is the cheap and simple drug PrEP. However, there is a major problem with prescription, particularly for those trying to access it for the first time. What assessment have the Government made of the incidence of HIV because people cannot easily access PrEP? Will the Minister look at extending the prescribing of HIV prevention drugs beyond hard-pressed sexual health clinics to other sources, including GPs and community pharmacies?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very important point. PrEP is now being commissioned as a routine service, and PrEP funding has been fully included within the public health grant, which will benefit over 80,000 people at the highest risk of HIV. But I do agree that having access through GPs would be helpful.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, what is the Department for Education doing or planning to do in schools by way of sex and relationship education to prevent young people getting HIV and sexually transmitted diseases?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The Prime Minister is also concerned about reports that inappropriate materials are being used to teach sex and relationship education to young people. As the Prime Minister has set out, we are clear that the materials used must be factual and age appropriate. We have brought forward a review of the statutory guidance and will conduct a consultation on it later this year, as planned and in line with the usual process. The review will look at whether we should place clearer limits on the content being taught to children, depending on their age.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, there has been a significant and welcome increase in the number of people ordering HIV tests online, but when they go to the freetesting.hiv website they find that tests are available in only a limited number of local authority areas. Will the Minister look at the potential benefits of making this free testing service available in more parts of the country?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I was unaware that it was not universally available to all health authorities in the UK, but I shall certainly pass that question on.
Lord Lexden (Con)
To return to the issue of PrEP, two years after its regular commissioning, do not too many people face long waiting lists or remain unaware of the tremendous benefit they could get from this great drug?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. If he knows of any specific cases, I shall certainly look into that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the National AIDS Trust found that nearly 100,000 people in the UK received HIV care in 2019. The late Baroness Masham rightly highlighted the problem of stigma. Mental health services are disproportionately greatly required for patients with HIV, and those with advanced HIV need expert palliative care. What are the Government doing to ensure that that population get the palliative care and mental health services they need? Not everybody is living easily and well, despite the treatment regimes we have.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness —and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler—for making the point about stigma. We all recall what the stigma was like in the 1980s and 1990s; hopefully, the situation is much better. I hope and believe that that group receives the palliative care it rightly should. If the noble Baroness knows of any individual cases, she should get back to me.
Devolved Budget for Wales: Inflation
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox of Newport
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact of inflation on the devolved budget for Wales.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
The Welsh Government are well funded to meet their responsibilities. The 2021 spending review set the largest annual settlement in real terms since the devolution Act. The settlement is still growing in real terms over the spending review period. The Welsh Government also have their own tax and borrowing powers. In addition, the UK Government are supporting households UK-wide with the cost of living, supporting businesses, charities and the public sector with their energy bills.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I need to make her and the House aware that Wales is facing a perfect storm of pressures, with austerity, the pandemic, the cost of living and high inflation. Our economy and public services in Wales are very fragile. Simply put, it seems that the UK Government have abandoned Wales to meet these pressures alone. With the funding from last autumn’s Budget Statement, inflation means that our settlement is still worth up to £3 billion less in real terms and £1 billion less next year. What can the people of Wales hope for from the UK Government’s latest Budget today—more of less?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I reiterate to the noble Baroness—and to the Welsh Government—that the Welsh Government, in the 2021 spending review, received the largest annual settlement in real terms since the devolution Act. I also say to the noble Baroness that, with the inflation that we are facing across the country, the budget is still growing in real terms across the spending review period. The Autumn Statement included additional funding for Wales, and today’s Budget means that the Welsh Government will receive an additional £180 million through the Barnett formula across the next two years. Measures that we are taking across the UK in today’s Budget will benefit Wales: the extension of the energy price guarantee; the freezing of fuel duty; and the doubling of draught relief, which will support more than 2,000 pubs and bars in Wales. There is much to be welcomed in today’s Budget for Wales.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that Wales has been inadequately funded under both Labour and Conservative Governments? Many reports have been debated in your Lordships’ House. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, saying how inadequate it is. The Barnett formula is a fraud; it seriously underfunds Wales. Furthermore, Wales in any case suffers from long-term problems in matters such as housing and education, which relate to the fact that Wales is bracketed with England—a bad idea in the first place. We need something much more substantial than what were—I agree with the noble Baroness—some beneficial points today. Otherwise, Wales will continue to lag behind.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I believe the noble Lord was referring to the Lords Committee on the Barnett Formula in 2009, which called for a review of that, including implementing a needs-based factor. That is exactly what we have done through implementing the recommendations of the Holtham commission, which found that the Welsh Government should have at least 15% more per person than equivalent UK government spending to reflect the Welsh Government’s additional needs. In fact, that figure is 20% more per person in the 2021 spending review, which is about £1 million more each year than the Holtham commission indicated and which the Welsh Government agreed was fair for Wales relative to England.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, did not the Holtham commission have as one of its three points the need to do away with the Barnett formula as it exists and to replace it with a needs-based formula? That has not been accepted by the Government. Will they please think again?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Instead of removing the Barnett formula, we have amended it to include that needs-based factor. The Barnett formula is simple and efficient and provides a clear and certain outcome. With the addition of the needs-based factor, the people of Wales have the guarantee that funding based on their own needs will not fall below the assessment of where those needs are.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, inflation did not come as some act of God; it was caused by paying people for two years to stay home and printing money to cover the difference. Is it not odd that those who called for the longest and strictest lockdown, including not least Labour’s Administration in Wales, now complain about it and demand more of the medicine that sickened the patient? Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that no one ever tamed inflation by spending more money?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right about the importance of reducing inflation. That is why it is so important that the measures we have taken in the Autumn Statement and today’s Budget mean that, when we get to the end of this year, inflation is more than halved, meeting one of the Prime Minister’s five pledges to the United Kingdom.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, last month the British Dental Association warned that NHS dentistry in Wales could disappear. In Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan alone, around 15,000 people are on two-year waiting lists, more than 8,000 of whom are children. Given the financial constraints already referred to and the imposition by the UK Government of a 3.5% cap on the dentists’ remuneration body—leading to 13% saying that they would hand back their contracts this year—how can the Welsh Government run an efficient and viable service?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe that is a question for the Welsh Government, as it is a devolved area. On funding, I just go back to the point that the Welsh Government have had a record settlement. At the Autumn Statement we put increased money into the NHS and social care, which of course would have flowed through to Wales as a result of the Barnett consequentials. What the Welsh Government choose to do with that money is a matter for the Welsh Government.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, is it not extremely difficult to secure throughout our country the high level of prosperity that we would all like to see? My noble colleagues from Northern Ireland will testify to that.
Baroness Penn (Con)
It is a difficult thing, but one that this Government are committed to. That is why I am so pleased to see that as a result of the measures announced in this Budget today, we have seen the OBR adjust its growth forecasts upwards by the largest amount based on supply-side reforms since its establishment in 2010.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the Barnett formula in terms of great approval. How does one reconcile that with the view of Lord Barnett about his own formula when he said he was deeply ashamed of it? Why are the Government not equally ashamed?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe we are having a whole debate this evening about the Barnett formula. I simply say to the noble Lord that, yes, all allocation systems have strengths and weaknesses. The reforms I spoke about earlier in this Question, introducing a needs-based factor into the Barnett formula for Wales, have addressed one of the major weaknesses that was identified.
Rugby: 200th Anniversary
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Addington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the game of rugby football; and what plans they have to support rugby as a grassroots game.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and remind the House of my ongoing interests in rugby football.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government are delighted that rugby football is celebrating its bicentenary this year. Last month, the Minister for Sport was thrilled to attend some of the celebrations that took place at Rugby School. Rugby continues to be one of our most widely participated-in sports and we are committed to supporting it at all levels. We also look forward to England hosting the women’s World Cup in 2025.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, once we have got over the celebration of the women’s World Cup, which is a good thing, does the Minister agree that grass-roots sport, that usually creates its own pitches and facilities without government help—it does it itself—is in real trouble, thanks to Covid cutting down the number of players, its primary income source, and the fact that energy costs and inflation are knocking on the doors of a smaller base to create the finances to keep it going? Will the Government assure us that they will look positively at making sure that this voluntary group can carry on delivering the benefits it does in both mental and physical health?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Voluntary groups indeed do a great deal of good work to support the sport in all communities, but the noble Lord is not right to say the Government are not doing their part too. We have committed to delivering the pitches and sports facilities that every community needs and are investing £230 million between 2021 and 2025 on top of an existing £18 million annual commitment in England, so the Government are supporting those groups, as we did during the pandemic.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, noting that I am a former rugby player who suffered my own fair share of concussions, may I ask what steps the Government are taking both to protect young players from life-changing injuries and to protect local clubs from bankruptcy due to claims by former players?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The safety, well-being and welfare of everyone taking part in sport, whatever the sport, are paramount and the Government are leading work on brain injuries across sports, specifically looking at concussion. We are working with interested parties across the sporting world to develop a single set of shared concussion guidelines, which will be published in the near future.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, since the day after tomorrow is St Patrick’s Day, will the Minister join me in a fit of magnanimity and wish the Irish rugby team every success in their bid to get the Grand Slam next weekend?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord tempts me to send wishes against my own home nation. I send good wishes to all the teams from the British Isles—and, indeed, the other two.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, when one thinks of Nelson Mandela wearing a Springbok shirt in the World Cup final in 1995 or the England rugby team playing in Dublin during the Troubles, one realises that rugby is a game that can inspire. When one thinks of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, playing rugby, one realises that the game can amaze.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Does my noble friend recognise that next month’s Union Cup, the Europe-wide tournament for lesbian and gay teams, will be the largest sporting event in the West Midlands this year? It has inspired and encouraged large numbers of people in diverse communities to take up the game of rugby.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I completely agree with what my noble friend says about the power of this sport to inspire people around the world. I pay tribute to his long-standing championing of it, as both a referee and a founder and vice-president of the Kings Cross Steelers, who I believe have been very successful in the Union Cup which he mentioned. I am glad to hear that that will take place in Birmingham later this year and I send good wishes to everyone taking part.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Does the Minister agree that it is no surprise that it was at an independent school that William Webb Ellis innovated by picking up the ball and running with it? Will the Government do all they can to promote independent schools in this country while at the same time improving the standards of education in state schools so that diversity of approach in sport and elsewhere is maintained?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As a former comprehensive school boy, I must stand up for schools of all sorts, including the independent and private sector. Of course, there were not as many state schools in 1823 at which to innovate in quite the same way, but through our support for schools opening up their sporting facilities, whatever sector they are in, we are keen to make sure that they continue to inspire people to take part in sport.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, we are entering a new era for women’s rugby, with many opportunities to grow the game. How will the Government use forthcoming events, including the 2025 women’s Rugby World Cup, which the Minister referred to earlier, to advance the participation of women and girls not just in rugby and other sports but in general fitness and health improvement?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Happily, we have seen in recent years the successes of women’s professional sports teams inspiring women and girls of all ages to be more active and take up sport. We are determined to get more women and girls playing sport and want to see women in leadership positions across it, whether that is in playing or coaching, on the medical and support side or at board level.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will make a virtual contribution.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, Lady Masham, who is so sorely missed, won gold in swimming and silver in wheelchair table tennis at a number of Paralympic Games. She was a passionate champion of disabled sports at all levels. While there is a good range of grass-roots sports for the disabled, including wheelchair rugby, seated tai chi, disabled angling, para dance and all-ability sports such as sitting volleyball, their spread by locality is very patchy, meaning that many disabled people have no chance to play. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that all disabled people can access grass-roots sports in their area?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
That question gives me the opportunity to add my tributes to the late noble Baroness, the first Paralympian in your Lordships’ House. I am pleased to say that Sport England has provided more than £800,000 of support for wheelchair rugby since 2019 to encourage people of all backgrounds and abilities to get involved. We are supporting communities to have pitches and sports facilities to ensure that people of all backgrounds and abilities can take part in sports.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, has the Minister’s department taken any opportunity to discuss with the rugby authorities the provision of medical cover at all levels, including grass-roots rugby?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My right honourable friend the Sports Minister meets the sporting bodies regularly and discusses these matters. I will take that point back and discuss it with him.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that in the past nine months two Premiership rugby clubs have collapsed. He will also be aware that several Premiership clubs and some professional clubs in the Championship, the second division, are under severe financial stress. What is the Government’s view of the future of rugby given these financial stresses? Should the department undertake a review of the organisation of the professional game to ensure its successful continuity?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Government provided £600 million of support through the sport survival package during the pandemic. We are in close communication with the Premiership Rugby league and the Rugby Football Union on their plans to manage the issues still facing the sport and their longer-term sustainability as we emerge from the pandemic. My right honourable friend the Sports Minister regularly engages with them and will continue to do so.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, is not the ever-growing partnership between independent and state schools in sport one of the most encouraging features of education at the moment? I declare my interest as president of the Independent Schools Association. How about assembling two teams composed of some of the leading lights in rugby from independent and state schools, combining the best from both schools, and getting the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to referee?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It sounds a very good idea; I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree. We certainly want to inspire people of all backgrounds to take part in this sport.
Lord Geddes (Con)
Is my noble friend aware of the tablet on Doctors Wall at Rugby which reads:
“This stone commemorates the exploit of William Webb Ellis who with a fine disregard for the rules of football as played in his time first took the ball in his arms and ran with it”,
thus creating the present-day game?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend’s question is a very good one indeed to see out our 10 minutes, and a good opportunity to be grateful for the innovation of William Webb Ellis and the two centuries of enjoyment that he has given people all over the world.
Nitrous Oxide
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Norwood Green
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs report Nitrous oxide: updated harms assessment, published on 6 March, what steps they are taking to prevent the sale of large canisters of nitrous oxide to the public.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, it is an offence under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 to supply or offer to supply oxide canisters of any size, knowingly or recklessly, for its psychoactive effect. I would expect police to use all available powers to crack down swiftly on illegal sellers. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs identified concerning anecdotal evidence of an increased prevalence of large canisters since 2015. We are now carefully considering its recommendations and will respond shortly.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I must confess I am somewhat disappointed by the response from the Minister. I have here the type of canister that is the challenge that we face. I do not know if you have noticed, but these canisters now litter the countryside everywhere. This one is empty—I did not indulge—but they are a serious problem. They are meant for industrial use, but are also a serious health hazard. There is no limit to the amount that can be ingested with them, unlike the small silver ones, known as whippits, that you see around; they are really meant for inflating party balloons but are also used to get a high. You can buy the large canisters on Amazon, no questions asked. Will the Minister take urgent action to ensure that these canisters are sold to licensed traders only, and take steps to discuss with Amazon the question of putting a deposit on the canisters so that they are returned? I would like the opportunity to meet him to discuss what further action could be taken.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord is right that the availability of larger tanks—I thank him for his example of one—is believed to have led to an increase in the amount and frequency of nitrous oxide use. In November 2018, the Government published a review of the Psychoactive Substances Act, which provided insights into the way the Act has affected the sale and use of potentially harmful new psychoactive substances. The review concluded that the open sale of new substances had largely been eliminated. After the 2016 Act came into force, 332 retailers across the United Kingdom were identified as having either closed down or stopped selling. However, I take his points on board; I am happy to meet him and will certainly take this back to the department. I should say that the report was published only on 6 March.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the review to which the Minister has just referred went on to say that academic and Europol evidence identified the UK as one of the leading dark-web sources of these illegal substances. What have the Government done since that review to address this and close down these too-easy-to-access sources of highly dangerous substances?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I take the noble Baroness’s point. As I say, the recommendations from the report are still under consideration. As I have just outlined, considerable work has been done on the retail of these canisters, but I will come back when I have more to tell her, based on the review of the report.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the advisory council is obviously vital; developments in this area are very speedy, so it enables the law and government decision-making to keep pace. However, the speed of development is glacial compared to the speed of change on the internet, and it is not just substances that we ingest that cause harm but images. Could my noble friend the Minister please take the opportunity to turn to his noble friend next to him from the DCMS, to advise him that somewhere in the Online Safety Bill we need clauses to future-proof so that, as things develop on the internet, the Government have the information quickly to hand so that we can put legislation or decisions in place to stop that harm?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend Lady Berridge is right; obviously we need to future-proof legislation—and I note that my noble friend next to me was nodding sagely during her question.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the advisory committee may not have given the advice that the Government were seeking in this matter, but I hope that the Government will look very seriously at the second issue which the advisory committee reported on, which was education. Given that there are now many medical professionals, both clinical and in research, who place the risks of nitrous oxide on a par with or greater than alcohol abuse, what steps do the Government propose to take to inform the public—particularly young people —of the consequences of nitrous oxide abuse, using their experience of dealing with alcohol abuse?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord raises a good point. A free drugs advice service from the Government, FRANK, contains information on nitrous oxide and the harm associated with taking it, such as dizziness, vitamin B12 deficiency, and nerve damage that can result from heavy long-term use. FRANK receives over half a million visits a month, with high levels of awareness and trust. User research commissioned by Public Health England has shown that 83% of 18 to 24 year-old adults are aware of this site, and that 85% of its users trust the site to provide reliable information about drugs.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lady Berridge, I say that it is a question not just of the ready availability of these online vendors who are working very hard to sell nitrous oxide, but of campaigns by social media which are backing that up. Does the Minister agree that there is now an argument for moving control from the Psychotic Substances Act 2016 to the Misuse of Drugs Act?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point but the advisory council did not actually recommend that. It said that nitrous oxide should be kept subject to the provisions in the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. However, as I said earlier, we are considering all the recommendations of the report, and the Home Secretary has a duty to consider advice on whether to pursue control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that nitrous oxide is a gateway drug and may well lead to young people in particular moving on to other drugs which are even more harmful? Does he also accept that the courts and the police force find it difficult to deal with the multitude of available drugs, which are constantly changing, so there needs to be huge vigilance to try to understand the range of drugs available to our young people?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I do not have any personal knowledge of whether it is a gateway drug, but the evidence that I have seen certainly suggests that to be the case; I believe it is the third most common drug in England and Wales after cannabis and cocaine, so I suspect that the noble Lord is right. As regards vigilance, I agree; obviously we have a long-term drugs strategy to take the challenge of drug misuse very seriously. It is a 10-year strategy, significant funds have been dedicated towards it, and it includes investing significant amounts of money in an ambitious programme of drug treatment and recovery.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain the legality of selling nitrous oxide in these large canisters? Are they illegal and, if so, has anybody been convicted of selling them? If they are not, is the Minister saying, “It is all right. We will welcome it for the moment and have a policy later”?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I certainly do not think I have said that, my Lords. There are legitimate uses for nitrous oxide, and we should bear that in mind. It is used in medicine, dentistry and—this may surprise noble Lords—as a propellant for whipped cream canisters. Those who supply nitrous oxide, knowingly or recklessly, where it will be used for its psychoactive effect commit an offence under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, regardless of the age of the buyer. That can include a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, and people are convicted under the Psychoactive Substances Act. There is no complacency here.
OFCOM (Duty regarding Prevention of Serious Self-harm and Suicide) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 15th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate OFCOM (Duty regarding Prevention of Serious Self-harm and Suicide) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all OFCOM (Duty regarding Prevention of Serious Self-harm and Suicide) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Regulations laid before the House on 21 and 23 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 32nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and 29th Report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instruments). Considered in Grand Committee on 14 March.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Callanan, I beg to move the Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper.
BBC: Government Role in Impartiality
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the Government claim not to have interfered in the BBC’s affairs this past weekend. We take that at face value, even if Downing Street had no problem with Conservative MPs applying their own pressure on the BBC. According to leaked messages, it is clear Downing Street has interfered in the corporation’s news output, both during the pandemic and at the beginning of the Ukraine conflict. Is not the Minister concerned by this quote from a BBC insider, who said:
“Particularly on the website, our headlines have been determined by calls from Downing Street on a very regular basis.”
Does not this bring us once again to the wholly inappropriate relationship between Boris Johnson and the man he appointed as chair of the BBC, and does not this tell us everything we need to know about the Government’s paper-thin commitment to the notion of impartiality?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that political parties, whether in government or in opposition, regularly contact the BBC and other broadcasters in relation to what they broadcast as part and parcel of the news content they provide, but the public service broadcasters do a brilliant job presenting impartial news which continues to inform people, whatever their political views or persuasions. The impartiality of the BBC as a publicly funded broadcaster goes to the very heart of the contract between it and the licence fee payers it serves. It is set out in the royal charter, along with the underpinning framework agreement, and the Government fully support the BBC in the action it takes to uphold that impartiality.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, in many organisations, the chairman’s role includes that of being the chief brand ambassador. This week, the BBC has found itself under siege, but the chairman has been totally absent and has not said a word. If it looks like a lame duck and fails to quack, it appears to be a lame duck chairman—and, at the moment, a lame duck chairman who is under investigation on two counts, having been severely damaged by the Commons Select Committee. Does the Minister agree that, even if the chairman does not feel he should stand down, he should at least be suspended while these inquiries go on?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the BBC’s charter makes it clear that it is the director-general, as editor-in-chief of the corporation, who has final responsibility for individual decisions on the BBC’s editorial matters, not the chairman of the board or other board members; that is what has been discussed quite widely in the past few days. The director-general of the BBC has made this clear, saying on Monday that he is
“absolutely not affected by pressure from one party or the other.”
The corporation is upholding its impartiality, as it absolutely should. The Commissioner for Public Appointments, as he is entitled to do, announced a review of the appointment process for the chairman of the BBC; we await the outcome of that review.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, does the House not remember those halcyon days—oh, okay. If you want.
Lord McNally (LD)
What courtesy from the Conservative Benches—there is hope for them yet. It is our turn; that is why I am standing.
My Lords, the Minister of State, Julia Lopez, made my heart leap yesterday when she told the Commons:
“The BBC is a world-class broadcaster, a creative engine and a cultural institution producing some of the best television and radio in the world.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/23; col. 714.]
She slightly rolled back on that later when addressing some of her Neanderthals by reassuring them that the mid-term review in 2024 would deal with some of their concerns. I wonder: will that mid-term review be just a one-way street of more squeezes on the BBC or will other things be considered, such as the decision to do away with the UK BBC News service? Will it consider the long-term impact of the campaigns run by the Murdoch press, Associated Newspapers and Express Newspapers, all tax-exile owned and all with a massive self-interest in diminishing and attacking the BBC? Will the mid-term review be a genuine two-way street, bringing things back as well as getting rid of them?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The terms of reference for the mid-term review were published in May last year, so the noble Lord can consult them. As set out in the charter, the review will consider the governance and regulation of the corporation. As agreed with the BBC, Ofcom and the devolved Administrations, it will consider how the governance and regulation of the BBC delivers the requirement on impartiality in the charter. I hope also to make the noble Lord’s heart glow by associating myself with my honourable friend’s comments.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, does the House not remember those halcyon days of the Blair premiership when not only was Gavyn Davies, a Labour donor, made chairman of the BBC but Greg Dyke, another Labour donor, was made director-general of the BBC? I do not remember everybody talking about impartiality then. Can my noble friend the Minister not only remember that but answer me this: does he think that £1.35 million is worth spending on a single presenter who used to be very good at football?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I remember those days. As noble Lords would expect, an organisation as august and that has been around for as long as the BBC draws people from all sorts of backgrounds, political or otherwise. Long may it continue to do so and long may such people continue to discharge their responsibilities impartially. How the BBC decides to spend the money that it gets from licence fee payers is for it to decide and justify to those licence fee payers.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, political pressure on the BBC is not new. Mr Wilson, Mrs Thatcher and Mr Blair all had their problems with the BBC. As in this place, those in power there face scrutiny, but does the Minister accept two things that are now in play when it comes to impartiality: first, the long-term commodification of the BBC, which has eroded its funding and its service commitment to the nations and regions at home, to religion, to culture, to education and to our mutual flourishing through both the expression of heightened values and entertainment; and, secondly, the fact that impartiality is about fairness? Who determines what is impartial? It should not be the Government.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I say, the process for the BBC’s impartiality is set out in its royal charter and framework agreement; it is for the BBC to discharge that. The Government also made Ofcom the independent regulator of the BBC in 2017, with a further independent body responsible in that process. The BBC will receive at least £3.8 billion for the remainder of the current charter period in annual licence fee funding. On their part, the Government have also provided further funding, such as the announcement this week of a £20 million uplift for the BBC World Service in recognition of the crucial role that it plays. The right reverend Prelate is right to point to the many important roles that the corporation plays in our national—and, indeed, the world’s international —life.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an ex-governor of the BBC. I echo the view that was expressed about Gary Lineker and his salary. He is like many people who have been in that position in the past and who believe that they are irreplaceable. Your Lordships will remember that Jeremy Clarkson and the “Top Gear” team thought that they were irreplaceable; needless to say, “Top Gear” thrives just as successfully without them. I have conveyed in writing to the director-general my advice to get rid of the old boys’ club of Lineker, Shearer and Wright, and replace it with at least one or two women, which we could probably do for half the price, and they would do twice as good a job.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
If the noble Baroness could just pause to hear the end of my contribution, I do not believe that we should be paying those kinds of prices for presenters. If the BBC did this—
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
It is so kind of my noble friends to assist me. If the BBC did that, we could save the BBC Singers, which provides a really important contribution to the country.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Decisions about salaries are for the BBC, but the Government have urged transparency over those payments, so that licence fee payers are aware of how their money is being spent.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a freelance composer and broadcaster for the BBC, although at a somewhat less august salary level than Mr Gary Lineker. The Minister would probably accept, as we all do, that there is a difference between not making political observations in programmes that you are aligned to and being free to express your conscience when you are talking about something which has nothing to do with sport or, in my case, music. Does he understand that musicians feel rather beleaguered, given the Arts Council England cuts, coupled with this own goal of scrapping the BBC Singers, the only professional group of its sort in this country?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Questions about how people who work for the BBC use social media and how their activity adheres to the BBC’s social media guidelines are for the corporation to determine. The noble Lord, who does not tweet, I think, and certainly not in a way that causes any controversy, is right to draw attention to the decisions about the BBC Singers and BBC orchestras, although again those decisions are for the BBC to set out and justify to licence fee payers, in the context of how it spends their money. The noble Lord referred to Arts Council England cuts. I remind him that the amount of money being dispensed by Arts Council England in the new portfolio is larger than in the previous one, and classical music accounts for a great deal of its musical output. However, he is right to draw your Lordships’ attention to this important issue.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Wednesday 15th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-V(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (15 Mar 2023)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I preface my remarks to the hearty few who are left behind by saying that the Marshalled List is fiddly today, so bear with me if I go off the rails. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, will be taking part remotely. I remind the Committee that, unless they are leading a group, remote speakers speak first after the mover of the lead amendment in a group and may therefore speak to other amendments in the group ahead of the Members who have tabled them.
Clause 32: Exercise of fire and rescue functions
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I begin by declaring my policing interests, which are set out in the register. The stand part propositions on Clauses 32 to 38 all highlight to your Lordships the ridiculous state that North Yorkshire will be in should these clauses remain in the Bill. For the sake of the Deputy Chairman of Committees, I say that at this point I will not be pressing these propositions.
At Second Reading, I raised the question of the split of responsibilities between the mayor and the chief constable. I have done a bit of digging since then. I was concerned that the chief constables would be given responsibility for the fire and rescue service, alongside their duty to manage their forces. I am very grateful to the Minister for addressing this in her letter to us of 27 January. However, I wonder whether the Government have fully understood or considered the dilemma that the police, fire and crime commissioner will have if the single-employer model is used in North Yorkshire, which is destined to become a unique—as far as I am aware—mayoral combined authority or MCA.
The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, in which the policing protocol sets out the independent direction and control of a chief constable, would be in conflict with the employee status of the current fire chief model. How do the Government propose to change this to have the same independent direction and control if this model is chosen?
The staff of the fire service are employees, employed in an entirely different way from police officers, who are servants of the Crown. Police staff are employed on different terms and conditions of work again, albeit under the direction and control of the chief constable. Of course, fire staff have different pay structures and a completely different pay negotiation mechanism. I leave to your Lordships’ imagination the chaos that would be caused should these two entirely different organisations be merged into one. There would be equal-pay concerns and pay rise inequality unless the staff were transferred into one organisation, which would have to be done if you used the single-employer model, in order to resolve these complexities.
However, in such a model, the legislation would still have to afford independent direction and control of the fire service to the chief officer for it to be viable for the practical, day-to-day delivery of the service. The outcry from police officers, who may be offered a meagre pay rise when fire officers are offered more, because of the different way their employment models are constructed even though they work alongside each other, will be a recipe for disaster.
At Second Reading, I was anxious to point out that the chief constable, certainly in North Yorkshire, will have this unique MCA and should not have to take on the responsibility of all the fire officers and staff—around 900 persons. This is not what chief police officers are about. In reality, it would fall to the chief constable, as the chief officer. What a conundrum for her; I am not sure that she has the capacity to do that. I am not sure that the chief constable—any chief constable—faced with the single-employer model would want to be responsible for that.
Unfortunately, when the first of our three PCCs in North Yorkshire decided to take on to herself the responsibilities for overseeing the fire service as well as the police, she cannot possibly have envisioned the mess that would ensue if a combined authority—now a mayoral combined authority—were to come under a mayor’s jurisdiction. Nor do I think that any incoming mayor in my county would relish being immediately responsible for 900 fire personnel. What a muddle.
There are significant problems too with data protection and vetting standards when sharing IT systems, which would have to be overcome. We have already seen in our recent North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service’s HMICFRS report that there are concerns surrounding a shared support function that is in place in North Yorkshire. HMICFRS commented that:
“It needs to make sure collaboration activities, such as those with police”
are effective and “provide value for money”. It currently shares some business services with North Yorkshire police and the office of the police, fire and crime commissioner, but there is little evidence to show its benefits to the service.
These problems were well highlighted by both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the National Fire Chiefs Council back in 2018, when it was proposed that PCCs could take on the responsibilities of fire authorities too. The PCC for North Yorkshire at that time decided to grow her empire and take on the task. It was proved to be wrong then and it is certainly being proved to be wrong now. In the recent HMICFRS report cited above, the inspectorate stated that the fire and rescue service in North Yorkshire had actually deteriorated during this time. I do not know how many other PCCs have taken on the role—most, I believe, just stick to their policing role—but we still have this problem in North Yorkshire.
These problems have not been thought through properly at all, which is why I was so keen at Second Reading to address them. There are enough problems in policing today without them having to take on fire services as well. A number of forces apart from the Met are in special measures, so how would they be able to take on the added responsibility of the fire service? This needs to be clarified, and quickly, before even more of a mess is allowed to get into legislation around policing.
I think that we need to take out the whole section of the Bill about chief constables being responsible for fire authorities, certainly unless and until this quirk in the proposed legislation would see the North Yorkshire problem solved. As I said at the beginning, I will not press for their removal at this stage, but I will listen intently to what the Minister has to say about them. I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 122A, which is in this group. Before I start, I want to say how much I appreciated the contribution just made by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond, which illustrated another example of Ministers putting provisions into Bills which they do not fully understand themselves. If they had spoken to any chief constable, any chief fire officer, or possibly anybody from North Yorkshire they would have known that this will not work. It will be very interesting to see how the Minister responds.
My amendment takes a broader look. It is not specifically concerned with the clauses relating to the problems my noble friend so ably outlined. It addresses the phrase which appears time and again:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations”,
et cetera. I ploughed my way through the first 38 clauses, and 18 start with exactly those words, three start with
“A Minister of the Crown must”
and four simply start with “Regulations may be made”. So 25 out of the first 38 clauses essentially say that the Secretary of State can do what he likes.
My amendment is not about that. It is about Clause 38(4), which goes far beyond that. It states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend, revoke or repeal a provision of or made under an enactment in consequence of provision”
in subsection (1). To paraphrase, the Secretary of State can change his mind at any time and change the regulations to suit. It occurs to me that it would have been much quicker for the Government actually to take out those 38 clauses and to have a simple one-clause Bill, the first subsection of which would say, “The Secretary of State may by regulation do whatever he chooses”, and the second, “The Secretary of State may by regulation make any change of mind he has at any time he chooses”, because that covers the essence of these 38 clauses. Explaining the extent of the Secretary of State’s powers takes 245 pages in the memorandum, so it is, even by the Government’s own reckoning, a significant problem.
Almost nothing of substance appears in the Bill. Everything is subject to regulations. Even the missions are not defined, and every attempt so far to pin the Government down on any detail, or even on the broad principles, has been resisted by the Front Bench opposite. Everything is left to the supreme genius of the Secretary of State for the time being to decide what is to be done and how. In this case, in this clause, he or she is allowed to change his mind, to revoke, repeal, et cetera. Of course, that will produce regulations that we can, if we are lucky, in due course express an opinion on but which we ourselves in Parliament certainly will not be able to amend, revoke or repeal. The Secretary of State is taking powers that are certainly denied to those of us who will subsequently look at his regulations.
If it is good enough for the Secretary of State to have the power, at the drop of a hat, to amend, revoke and repeal, then why is it not good enough for Parliament? But that, of course, is a silly question; I realise that. How naive can I be? Power is to remain in Whitehall, not to be given to town halls and certainly not to Parliament. The provision in Clause 38 illustrates the point exactly. The Bill is not handing out new powers to anyone; it simply hands out new regulations. Going through your Lordships’ House in parallel with this Bill is the retained EU law Bill. The starting point of that is that there is far too much regulation, red tape and bureaucracy, and we need to go through every Act and regulation that has been passed in the last 46 years and decide what to throw away. I think it is part of the two-out, one-in rule.
I suggest to the Government that the difficulties they face with that Bill would be substantially relieved if they were to produce a different Bill: the retention of local government law Bill, which would do exactly the same for local government as they are trying to do in respect of EU law.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, obviously, I completely support the argument of my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond that Clause 32 and the other clauses in this group should not stand part of the Bill. She made a powerful argument, as did my noble friend Lord Stunell, about the regulations and the power that is going to be devolved to the Secretary of State through these clauses. Further, my noble friend Lady Harris amply demonstrated the shortfalls of such mergers. This is a pilot example of what happens when provision is made for a chief constable to take over the responsibilities of a fire service. According to the argument made by my noble friend and the evidence in the HMICFRS report, it is not going well. I am beginning to think that the Government despise local government and local democracy. My noble friend Lord Stunell has just suggested a retention of local government law Bill, and perhaps that is what we have to start considering.
Clause 32(2) states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision … authorising … the chief constable … to exercise fire and rescue functions”.
I know the Government have wanted to merge these two emergency services for some time, but this is being proposed without reference to local informed discussion, debate and solution. Furthermore, Clause 33(2)—this was where I got really quite concerned—states that “A request” for such a merger
“must be accompanied by a report which contains … an assessment of why”.
That is fair enough. There are two criteria: that
“it is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness for the regulations to be made”;
“or” that
“it is in the interests of public safety”.
We are taking about emergency services, so surely you would want to consider a merger according to the first criterion: economy, efficiency and effectiveness. But you would then use the word “and” before the phrase
“in the interests of public safety”.
However, the Bill uses the word “or”, and it does so several times in these clauses. The message that sends to me is that economy, efficiency and effectiveness are far more important than public safety—even for an emergency service.
Clause 33(4) indicates that even if two-thirds—this is where the democracy bit concerns me—of the constituent members of the combined county authority oppose such a merger, the mayor could just ignore that and continue with the merger plan despite the considerable scale of opposition by involving the Secretary of State. Where is the case for merging two emergency services with very different skills? How is it going to improve public safety? As I have said, public safety seems to be a secondary requirement when considering a merger. Can the Minister let us know where to access any detailed examples, apart from the North Yorkshire model which has already been exposed as not successful, of how such mergers improve public safety? That must, after all, be key to any decision in principle that this Bill proposes.
I end with the words of my noble friend. The problems that she outlined have not been thought through properly. If the Government wish to merge two emergency services with very different backgrounds, pay structures and requirements, then we need a proper assessment prior to the Bill proposing, as it does in these clauses, that they can go ahead just by writ from the mayor and Secretary of State.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I completely understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has brought her concerns forward. This is clearly a really important issue in Yorkshire, where she lives. I also think it draws to your Lordships’ attention that much in the Bill is perhaps not as straightforward as it would appear at first glance, and that things affect different areas in different ways. Perhaps the Government should look again at some parts of the Bill where there will be different impacts from those perhaps originally envisaged. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has drawn attention to one of these areas.
The noble Baroness mentioned the National Fire Chiefs Council. This is an opportunity to put on record the National Fire Chiefs Council’s response to the Government’s recent review of police and crime commissioners, as that puts it in the context of these clauses and our discussions about how the Bill relates to fire services and PCCs. The Government’s review looked at fire services, policing, governance and voluntary and community organisations. There were certain specifics relating to fire. The Government said that they would further look at:
“Consulting on whether to mandate the transfer of fire and rescue functions to the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner model across England where boundaries are coterminous, unless there is an option to transfer fire governance directly to an elected Mayor … Legislating to create operational independence for Chief Fire Officers and to clearly separate and delineate strategic and operational planning for fire and rescue … Considering options to clarify the legal entities within the PFCC model.”
They stated that
“the Government is clear that further reform of fire and rescue is required in order to respond to the recommendations from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, the Kerslake Review and to build on the findings from Sir Thomas Winsor’s State of Fire and Rescue Report”.
Any reform would
“focus on three key areas: people; professionalism; and governance”.
In response, the National Fire Chiefs Council said
“if fire services are governed by a Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC)”—
we already know that some already are—
“it is imperative CFOs roles are safeguarded and have the same standing as a Chief Constable. Currently, Chief Constables … act as the employer and have operational independence. The same operational positioning for CFOs is vital, together with”
a wider status sitting alongside police forces. We know that fire services are driven by risk and risk factors; they are not as demand-led as police forces, and a number of key operational, organisational and cultural differences sit between the two services. When working with them, we need different approaches; there are different functions, and a different kind of political understanding needs to come with that.
We only need to look back over the last couple of years to see the response to the pandemic and how fire services were able to adapt quickly to the frequent challenges which emerged. However, it also showed that there are some areas that need reform to ensure that the public continue to receive the outstanding response they expect. We know that the public have huge respect and support for our fire services.
We must not forget the role of the fire services to serve communities, putting them first while reducing risk and saving lives. We must not lose sight of that when making reforms, because any reform that happens will be a pretty major undertaking and will need to be resourced appropriately. If changes come from the Bill to the way fire services are managed, we must not lose resources, and they must be carried out in a consistent, joined-up manner.
There also has to be proper clarity around the political leadership. How will that operate? With appropriate political oversight, CFOs will be well placed to deliver the operational running of services, using strong data and the evidence they need. However, if we are moving in the direction that the Bill is suggesting, there must be a democratic mandate, good governance, accountability and robust political decision-making, otherwise there is a risk of undermining the community’s trust in those services, which is critical.
We also need clear lines of responsibility, and we should have national guidance and standards on this for all forces, PCCs and fire services to follow. Any strategic direction of budgets has to be properly evidence-based, with clearly defined roles for the people who are part of those services.
To conclude, one of the things we are concerned about, which came across in the earlier contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, is the confusion presented by so many different models, both those which currently exist and those which will be expanded by the proposals in the Bill. So clarity going forward is critical.
I turn, very briefly, to Amendment 122A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. He is absolutely right to be concerned about the fact that the Secretary of State in this part of the Bill is basically being allowed to do whatever they like. The whole Bill has been pitched as devolving power, but this is centralising power, and it goes against the spirit of what we felt the Bill proposed to be. We need proper checks and balances on any powers given to PCCs and the Secretary of State, so we completely support the noble Lord’s amendment. Any Secretary of State should not be able to amend, revoke or repeal at a whim.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the ability of combined county authority mayors to take on fire and rescue functions. On issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—it is very nice to see her; we miss her in the House—Clause 32 enables the mayor of a combined county authority to exercise fire and rescue functions in the same way that a mayor of a combined authority can. We have seen this already in Greater Manchester, where the mayor has taken on the police and crime commissioner role and fire and rescue functions.
This allows public safety functions to be taken as a package where there is a local desire for this—we are not imposing it—and boundaries are co-terminous. It is worth noting that this is a choice for the local area, allowing the decision to be taken at the most local level, in line with the principle of localism. We are also keen to ensure that, whenever possible, the functions of combined authorities and combined county authorities should be the same. This starts to answer the noble Baroness opposite: we are trying to simplify things; we are not trying to add different complications. We are trying to make the combined authorities and combined county authorities—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. She has said that the decision will be made only if it is supported democratically. Yet Clause 33(4)(b) says that
“at least two thirds of the constituent members of the CCA”
can indicate that
“they disagree with the proposal for the regulations to be made”,
and Clause 33(5) says that the mayor, in providing a report to the Secretary of State, must give their response to those same proposals. I thought that democracy was about winning the argument, not finding a way around it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Secretary of State would have an independent review of the decision and would make a decision taking all that into account.
We are also keen, as I say, to make sure that those combined authorities and combined county authorities operate in the same way to ensure this consistent approach to devolving these functions to mayors, whether they are leading a combined authority or a combined county authority. This clause achieves that for the exercise of fire and rescue functions by replicating the existing provisions in the 2009 Act.
I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness regarding Clause 33. The single-employer model is just one option available to combined county authority mayors with both police and crime and fire and rescue authority functions, allowing the area’s chief constable to run both operational services. A mayor of a CCA could seek to utilise the model if they felt that doing so would deliver a more effective service. To go back to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, if we are talking about fire and rescue and police and crime, an effective service is one that keeps people safe; that is their job and I suggest that, if it is effective, that is exactly what they are doing.
As far as York and North Yorkshire are concerned, the fire and rescue service and the police and crime functions are, as the noble Baroness said, already adjoined, but without the use of a single employer. That has not been taken into account in York and North Yorkshire, and there is no reason to think that the mayor will do that. At the moment, the combined authority still has to go through parliamentary approval, so that will be something for local people in the future.
Clause 33 sets out the process required for the mayor of a combined county authority to request fire and rescue functions. The clause is an important part of the procedure to be followed when fire and rescue functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of the single-employer model. It ensures that there is sufficient scrutiny from both constituent councils of the CCA and the public because it requires the mayor to provide a report setting out an assessment of the benefits of the conferral and a summary of the public consultation carried out, along with a specific summary of representations from the constituent members of the CCA and the mayoral response to them.
This clause also contains further scrutiny to make sure that any proposal will deliver more effective services for an area. The Secretary of State has to obtain and publish an independent assessment of a proposal from a combined county authority mayor if two-thirds or more of the constituent members of the CCA oppose the transfer. The Secretary of State will then agree to transfer the functions only if they consider that doing so is in the interests of public safety for that area.
Removing the clause would remove key conditions for fire and rescue functions to be transferred to the mayor of a combined county authority and could therefore potentially lead to proposals going forward that have not been subject to either sufficient consultation or robust assessment. This in turn could lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.
I move on to issues the noble Baroness raised regarding Clause 34. This clause enables the Secretary of State to make provisions relating to the administrative operation of fire and rescue services, should a combined county authority mayor request these functions and transfer them to their chief constable to carry out on their behalf under the single-employer model. The clause is necessary because it enables there to be a scheme to transfer property, rights and liabilities as part of implementing the single-employer model. It also allows the chief constable to appoint staff as part of delegating their fire and rescue functions, subject to the necessary and important restrictions on who can carry out these responsibilities so that operational independence between policing and fire is maintained.
Removing this clause would make it very difficult for the chief constable to carry out their functions under the single-employer model, because they would not have access to key assets or be able to effectively resource their delivery. This would therefore lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and would hinder its day-to-day operation in a way that could ultimately impact on the successful delivery of these public safety functions for the area concerned.
On the issues raised by the noble Baroness on Clause 35, this clause sets out safeguards governing the exercise of fire and rescue functions where the single-employer model is being operated. These include a requirement on the chief constable to make sure that they secure good value for money, and an obligation on the CCA mayor to hold those exercising functions under the model to account. This clause is another important part of the process and procedure to be followed when these functions have been conferred on the mayor as part of the single-employer model. Where possible, the processes for handling the functions available to be conferred on combined county authority mayors are the same as those for combined authority mayors and subject to the same requirements.
Removing the clause would mean that the single-employer model would work less well in practice because important safeguards on the exercise of fire and rescue functions under the model would be lost. This in turn would lead to ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.
I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness in relation to Clause 36. This clause enables the Secretary of State by regulation to make provisions corresponding to Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 dealing with complaints and conduct matters. This clause is an optional power to be used when these functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of implementing the single-employer model. It specifically relates to complaint and conduct matters for members of a police force and their civilian staff or members of staff transferred to a chief constable or appointed by them where they are exercising functions under the single-employer model.
Removing the clause would mean that the methods for dealing with complaints and conduct matters could not be specified for those carrying out functions under the single-employer model where a combined county authority mayor has decided to use it to exercise their police and crime and fire and rescue functions. Without this clause, it would be much more difficult for any complaints and conduct matters to be handled consistently and efficiently, thereby hindering the effective implementation and day-to-day operation of the single-employer model.
Clause 37 allows the Secretary of State to transfer the application of fire and rescue provisions under Section 32 to specified persons where regulations have transferred these functions to the chief constable of the area. Removing this clause would mean that the Secretary of State would not be able to make further provisions applying a fire and rescue enactment or new corresponding provisions in relation to chief constables to whom fire and rescue functions have been delegated as part of the use of the single-employer model. As such, removing this clause would hinder the effective implementation of the single-employer model.
Amendment 122A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, relates to powers under Clause 38.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I have listened very carefully both to the speeches that were made regarding the power of fire and rescue and police being together and the noble Baroness’s answers. I assume the purpose of this is not just an administrative difference but actually to improve the services of fire and police to people where this merger happens. Has the Minister looked at the four areas where this has happened, and His Majesty’s inspector of fire and police? Do those areas actually have a better service, an average service or a worse service than the national average?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I cannot answer the noble Lord in detail, but I will look into it and make sure he has those comparisons and knows what they are.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I can help the noble Baroness: having looked at the comparisons, I can say that they are actually below the national average. So, what is the purpose of going through this huge administrative issue if it does not improve the services to people on the ground?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Because this is localism. If local areas want to take on those responsibilities, the Government have been listening to local authorities and combined authorities and listening to the fact that they want to take these on. The fact that there are only a few of these combined police and crime responsibilities and fire and rescue responsibilities—at the moment, there are not very many—means that it is quite difficult to tell, but we need to keep an eye on it, obviously, and I will come back to that in a minute under Amendment 122A.
The Secretary of State has power under this clause, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, to apply legislation relating to police and crime commissioners in relation to combined county authority mayors where the single-employer model—that is, the ability to make the chief constable the single operational head of both the police force and the fire and rescue service—has been engaged. Clause 38(4) provides a power to amend, revoke or repeal legislation consequential on that power. This is important because of exactly what the noble Lord opposite said: this is the power that could be used if any area has implemented the single-employer model but the chief constable is failing to manage the F&RS effectively. The Secretary of State may wish to revoke the implementation of the single-employer model and use this provision to do so. I think this is the power we have put in to ensure that exactly what the noble Lord opposite says need not happen.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her response, which I am not sure entirely clarifies the situation. What she seems to be saying is that the Bill introduces a new scheme whose outcome is so uncertain that we need an extra provision for it to be changed if it goes wrong. That is in light of what my noble friend has just said, which is that the four actual examples that exist at the moment have all performed below average. So, in that sense, her caution about having such a power is perhaps quite sound, but does that not rather indicate that the model itself should not go ahead in this form until the Government are satisfied that it will achieve the objectives of improved performance, or at least not deteriorating performance, before she proceeds?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think we will not know exactly until we try it, but there will always be this power to say that, if those local people are not getting the service they require, the Secretary of State can revoke.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I think I am right on this, although the noble Baroness might correct me. I got through the first 38 clauses and I think this was the first time I saw this particular revocation and amendment power being given to the Secretary of State. I believe that would have the effect of that amendment being made without any further reference to Parliament, other than through a set of regulations that we cannot amend—so its absence would simply mean that, should something need to be corrected, it would come back to Parliament. Is that interpretation correct?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, it is a power for the Secretary of State.
The amendment seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to such legislation. The effect would be that the Secretary of State could still apply police and crime commissioner legislation in relation to a combined county authority mayor or chief constable but could not make any necessary consequential amendments to reflect a change of circumstances. This limitation is undesirable and would result in flawed and inconsistent legislation in this area.
Finally, I will address the issues raised by the noble Baroness on Clause 38. This clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations applying legislation that relates to a police and crime commissioner to a combined county authority mayor or a chief constable where the combined county authority mayor has adopted the single-employer model. Removing the clause would hinder the effective full implementation of the single-employer model because it would mean that the Secretary of State could not make further regulations applying local policing enactments or new corresponding provisions in relation to mayors of combined county authorities who have implemented the model.
I hope that my explanation will reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord of the importance of this group of clauses to the effective conferral of fire and rescue functions on combined county authority mayors, specifically on those opting to use the single-employer model to exercise these functions, and will therefore enable her to withdraw her opposition to them standing part of the Bill.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. All the clauses stand together, so I need to read Hansard carefully and go through her comments on each clause. I believe there was some contradiction in what she said, so it is important that I am quite clear going forward that I have understood absolutely what has been said this afternoon. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will withdraw my opposition at this point to the clauses standing part, but we will come back to this on Report.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(ba) a district council whose area is within the proposed area;”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add district councils to the list of local authorities who may prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA and to be able to submit such a proposal to the Secretary of State.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we have had at least two debates so far on the role of non-metropolitan district councils within the new framework, and I want to return to this theme for my two amendments in this group.
My concern is that district councils are essentially being marginalised in the new arrangements and excluded from being a component part of new arrangements for combined county authorities. It seems that this is part of a government trend to want to create ever-larger units of local government, undermining local democracy and the local involvement of the public. I very much agreed the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on Monday when he spoke of a “mania” in government that bigger is automatically better when it comes to local government. That is of course reinforced by the desire of many London-based quangos, public authorities and pressure groups to limit the number of local authorities they have to deal with.
It has been argued by some that larger local authorities are more efficient, but I have seen scant evidence of this. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made a very telling intervention on the combined police and fire authorities, saying that so far, the four in question have performed poorly. I suspect that the main reason why Whitehall has always wanted to create larger local authorities is simply that it makes it easier for it to control local government.
Two weeks ago, in discussing his Amendment 71 to Clause 8, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, reminded the Committee why district councils are so important. They deliver 86 out of 137 essential local government services to some 22 million people, which is 40% of the population of England. They cover such things such as waste collection, street cleaning, housing, economic development, planning, leisure, recreation, and many others. They are also better known, more popular and more trusted than other tiers of government. I remind the noble Lord that years ago, when my own Government tried to introduce regional government, starting with a referendum in the north-east, one of the key reasons why it failed was that people did not want local district councils to be abolished.
Frankly, it was a bit to my surprise and with no little consternation that I realised in preparing for this debate that in two months’ time, I will celebrate the 50th anniversary of being elected a member of Oxford City Council, in May 1973. I was in good company, since my noble friend Lord Liddle, and the noble Lords, Lord Oakeshott, and Lord Patten, were similarly elected. My excitement at being elected a councillor at the age of 23 was tempered by the fact it was a shadow authority preparing to take over in 1974, when there was a major restructuring of local government. Oxford lost its county borough unitary status and became a second-tier authority, essentially subordinate to an enlarged county council that was mainly concerned with rural interests. For an international city of huge strategic importance, which I think the Chancellor emphasised again today, that was a bitter pill to swallow. It has made me very wary of a Whitehall/Westminster drive over the years to press for ever larger local government units, as evidenced by the Bill.
Our debates on district councils have so far been in relation to Clause 8(11) and the constitutional arrangements for combined county authorities, whereby non-unitary district councils are not to be classified as constituent councils. Two weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said she found it insulting that democratically elected district councils are to be aligned in the new arrangements with non-constituent bodies and put in the same category as local business groups, chambers of trade and trade union bodies, which, of course, are not elected by the public. On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said he had come to the conclusion that district councils within a CCA area should become full members. My noble friend Baroness Hayman, speaking for the Opposition, said that district councils should be constituent, not non-constituent, members of a CCA to ensure they can play a full part in decision-making for their area. I think there is a growing consensus, at least in some parts of the House, that district councils need to have a greater stake in the new arrangements.
In referring to Clause 8, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, justified the Government’s exclusion of district councils by arguing that the model will provide the flexibility required for devolution to areas with two-tier local government and remove the risk of one or two district councils vetoing the wishes of the great majority for devolution. My understanding is that that has happened in only one place, which is scant evidence for excluding district councils completely from these new arrangements. The noble Earl went on to say that the Government expect the upper-tier local authorities with which they are agreeing devolution deals to work with their district councils. The problem is that it is entirely up to county councils whether they are going to embrace district councils officially.
Let me return to Monday’s debate and Amendment 155, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. Page 54 of the Bill states, remarkably, that non-constituent members of a combined authority can have a vote if the members of the combined authority agree to it. I take the noble Earl, Lord Howe, back to the example of Oxford, in response to which he said:
“it is entirely possible that a combined authority may have provided for an associate member—for example, a local business leader—" —[Official Report, 13/3/23; col. 1107.]
to have an input, and thereby a vote. He may not know it because he is so young—comparatively speaking—but up to 1974 the University of Oxford had two places on Oxford City Council, and it did appoint. Thinking of Oxfordshire in a new CCA arrangement, it is quite likely that the university will get a place as an associate member. Under these provisions, it could have a vote, and yet Oxford City Council would not. That is not justified.
In a sense, this debate is a bit of sideshow compared to the Clause 8 debate, but at least when it comes to the way applications can be made for the establishment of CCAs, surely district councils should have a formal right to play a part. Why not just give them the ability to make applications, or a recognised role in so doing? If the Government are serious about wanting a stronger incentive for districts, counties and unitaries to collaborate, surely this is one way to provide it. That is all my amendment asks for. It does not give them a veto; it says that, as elected statutory bodies, it is not unreasonable for them to be formally involved in the application process.
I hope that at the end of this Bill, we will have restored district councils to their rightful place as important local authorities with the right to participate and vote in CCAs, but also to play a part in the application process. I beg to move.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support this amendment and reiterate my perplexity at how the politician loves to know better than the people. The higher the politician goes, the more that politician loves to think that they know better than everybody else. That is not a powerful model of democracy. The idea that somehow jumbling around boundaries and structures, and who has which powers, will advance anything positively for society, or for the people, is a perplexing notion.
Some people have kindly suggested that I might want to stand for mayor of some body called Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. I cannot think of anything more appalling than being stuck in some office, trying to influence an incoherent geographical structure that, if anything, thrives on its rivalry rather than on what brings it together. It is a nonsense. The notion that bigger is best for how to change things in society, whatever the Government’s agenda, is a nonsense.
I cite one example, referring, as I have before, to where I live. In neighbourhood planning, planning for rail and community planning, which district council has more such plans in place than any other? I know the answer: Bassetlaw has the most. Why does it have the most? I take a little personal credit for going out and spending many, many weeks—probably months—persuading local people that this was a good idea. It originated under a Labour Government but was put into practice with enthusiasm by coalition and Conservative Governments. I went out and sold that model to people: “Here, you can determine, at the most local level, what should happen in your area”—and people love it. The Government’s objective, which they hid away—I was more up front—was to bring forward more housing. Strangely, when local people decided what happened in their local area, they said, “Here’s where it should go” and, “That would be good”. There was not just small consent but huge consent behind it. There were remarkably high levels of agreement.
This modest amendment is on the same principle. Of course district councils have some flaws; for example, in their ability to recruit the highest grade of staff in a very competitive market. If they have someone brilliant, but it is a small unit, that person can easily be poached by a larger unit and paid more. There are some inherent weaknesses but not in the principle of where democracy lies. I would say that, across the country, the overwhelming majority of lifelong Conservative Party voters would wholeheartedly endorse this amendment, as would many more people who support other parties whole- heartedly or whose votes would float all over the place. However, if the Government do not listen to this, they are hitting their own heartland in the heart, which is not a very clever move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall briefly respond to the cogent arguments made by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Mann. They made me almost sentimental for our time in the other place and I was taken back to the comments and speeches there from the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
Although, superficially, I can see the merit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, he does not take the concept of subsidiarity into account. This is what district councils are best at doing and it is at the lower level, although the functions are important. The purpose of the Bill is to leverage funding for strategic economic benefit. It is about inward investment, strategic transport and returns to scale from, for instance, police forces and fire services working together. It is not about diminishing the role, heritage and historical legacy of district councils.
My own area, Peterborough, in 1968 was a small, semi-rural, cathedral market town. No one imagined that it was ready to become a new town and have the significant growth that it saw between then, when it was designated a new town, and the 1990s. There was massive residential housing growth, big industries coming and the expansion of Perkins Engines, Thomas Cook, et cetera. My point is that, when it was a small district council, Peterborough could not have brought that economic powerhouse and growth itself; it had to work with other agencies and the Peterborough Development Corporation.
I am not arguing for a reconfiguration of development corporations, although the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, knows a lot about how they benefited Stevenage. My point is that you have to work with these larger bodies, which are below national but above small district council level. Take another example from the county of Suffolk. Local authorities, such as St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath were tiny; they could not deliver the core functions, in a globalised world, to bring jobs, opportunities, apprenticeships and new businesses to their areas. That is the point of this legislation; it is not about diminishing the role of district councils, but about helping them better fulfil their roles and responsibilities.
I can imagine the noble Lord, Lord Mann, becoming the mayor of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. I cannot think of a better candidate and am sure he would stand a good chance.
Oxford is a slightly strange example because it is, in effect, a world city. Three or four of our universities are in the world top 10, and Oxford is at the very heart of the success story of British academic repute. So Oxford is not a good example, but it obviously functions as a very important part of the greater Thames Valley, as an area of economic regeneration.
Having been a local councillor for eight years, albeit for a London borough, my heart is with the points of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but I think that the Government’s endeavours go in the right direction. Only if we can think big, work together and collaborate can we generate the economic activity, jobs and skills that will, eventually, we hope, regenerate local government and complement central government.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate and I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made very clear the key part that district councils play, in particular in local communities but also in the bigger architecture of local government outside the big cities. It is an argument that the noble Lord and these Benches have advanced before and we support it.
I like the noble Lord’s amendment, of course, but I want to move on to what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, had to say. He was, I think, claiming credit for neighbourhood plans. I am delighted to hear that, because I usually claim credit for them and I know a number of Conservatives who always claim credit for them as well. They have been remarkably successful and have done just what they said on the tin. I have a tip for the Government; it is one that I keep making but they keep forgetting. Neighbourhood plans have been so successful that they have designated more housing sites than the local plans that they supersede in their areas. Rather than some of the gimmicks that flow through Whitehall and get into Acts of Parliament, neighbourhood plans have actually done the job and filled the gaps. I hope that that point will be registered strongly.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, made a sound point about economic development. It is clearly very important, but that brings me to my criticism of the Government’s intentions as far as it is concerned. Economic development is one of the core functions of district councils. If they are not going to be seen as an important component in delivering it, something has been missed out of the system. Clause 86(2) says that
“regard is to be had to … the development plan, and … any national development management policies.”
It would make an alteration to a preceding Act; the addition is
“any national development management policies.”
My point is that the development plan is there. If you want development, it is going to be in the development plan. Who is responsible for that? It is the district council.
We have a situation where the development plan is in the gift of the local planning authority, which is the district council in two-tier areas. The district council has statutory responsibility for housing, economic planning and, for that matter, the location of social infrastructure such as clinics, schools, colleges and so on. They are in fact integral to delivering levelling up. I cannot understand—I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us this—what the architecture is for the delivery of the national development management plans, which, as far as Clause 86 is concerned, clearly sit bang alongside the local plans of the district council.
On the face of it, the CCAs are completely bypassed. They do not have a role in deciding what the national plan is, nor in deciding what the local plan is. The connection is straight between the local planning authorities and district councils, not CCAs, when it comes to those planning decisions.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Would not the noble Lord concede that a large number of functions at the district council level, such as environmental health and planning, are delivered through the collaboration of district councils together for the reason that individual district councils do not have the resources in staffing or money to deliver them on their own? Therefore, a complex district plan being delivered by just one local authority may have been the case in the past but is not necessarily happening at the moment.
Lord Stunell (LD)
One part of what the noble Lord says is certainly true, because a lot of local plans are not happening at the moment. All I say is that the Bill restates that development plans are a key lever, together with national development management plans. Those are in the custodianship of district councils, albeit that they may well work alongside other district councils or, for that matter, in combination with the county. I am simply making the point that the legal architecture in Clause 86 links district councils’ local plans to the national development plans, while the CCAs are not in the picture. Clearly, CCAs are intended to be the absolute economic driver for levelling up; that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. It seems odd that the principal vehicle at the local level for setting that scene—the development plan—will be outside the grip of the CCAs, for better or worse, and that the people who do the district plans will be outside the CCAs. There is a disconnect there that, frankly, disables the whole process. There I am completely with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Surely they should be at the heart of the process and, by the logic of that, should have the capacity to at least put forward a proposal, which would still be subject to the Secretary of State’s decision about how it might develop.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling the amendment. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his 50 years in local government and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on his many years in local government. I went into local government in 1997. I was leader of my council for nearly 17 years before I joined your Lordships’ House, so I am the baby of the party here. However, I learned a few things along the way, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, kindly remarked. I want to cover some comments about my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment and to make some general points about the role of district councils in the new world that we are looking at following the Bill.
The big question here was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, which is: where does democracy lie? This is a very important question. We think about it often in local councils. In previous sittings, we have heard set out clearly before your Lordships’ House the incredibly valuable role that district councils play in many of our communities in the UK, and I am grateful that this has been brought before us once again today. That is why it is so disappointing that the Bill, which purports to be all about devolution and bringing decision-making closer to people, seems to ride roughshod over the very tier of local government and the 183 councils that are closest to many people and communities. District councils outstrip county council colleagues and national government by a very long way indeed on issues such as helping people feel proud of their area, tackling social issues in our neighbourhoods, responding to and dealing with emergencies and, importantly, bringing the views of local people into decision-making in their local area. The figures are 62% for the district councils, 32% for county councils and 6%—yes, just 6%—for national government. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, district councils cover about 40% of the UK’s population but, importantly for the purposes of the Bill, they cover 68% of the land of the UK.
In this country we already have the lowest number of elected representatives per head in Europe; France has 35,000 communes with mayors and Germany has 11,000 municipalities. It is the UK that has abnormal levels of underrepresentation, and our councillors lack the powers and finances of many of our continental counterparts. Across the country we have around 2,000 electors per district councillor, which may account for their approachability, whereas there are 9,000 electors per county councillor.
They also represent communities that people recognise —I think this is key for the Bill. The comments by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, were very important here; people relate to the communities represented by our district councils. Surely the Bill should aim to keep the devolution we already have, not snatch it away to bigger and bigger combined authorities. That does not sound like progress to me.
This is not to set up any false conflict or rivalry between counties and districts. We all have a job to do and county councils are currently doing a valiant job in very trying circumstances. But with the high-cost services at county level, such as adult care services and children’s services, impacting on around just 5% of the population, whereas district council services impact on 100% of the population, it is perhaps not surprising to see how valued district councils are by their communities. As well as environmental services like the ones that my noble friend Lord Hunt commented on—waste collection, fly-tipping, street cleaning, licensing and food safety—districts look after leisure, parks and culture. They often take a role in preventive public health initiatives—in my own borough we have a Young People’s Healthy Hub tackling mental health issues for young people—town centre and high street management, tourism and so on. They also deal with key strategic services. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on this, because without key strategic services such as planning and economic development, there would be no levelling up. Leveraging £1 billion of town centre investment, as we have done in my borough, and £5 billion for a cell and gene therapy park—these are important contributions to the local area.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, referred to neighbourhood planning, which is a key part of how we drive forward issues around housing. It is well documented that it is neighbourhood planning that has actually delivered housing; it is a very important part of what has been done. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to issues around the structure and architecture of the national development management policies. Frankly, I do not understand how this is going to work in the way it is currently set out in the Bill.
There are plenty of other contributions that district councils make. It was alarming to hear the Minister contend in our earlier session this week that
“councils do not deliver any of the services required by the PCC.”—[Official Report, 13/3/23; col. 1143.]
That does not take into account the very successful partnership working between district councils and the police. As well as managing CCTV systems and often funding neighbourhood wardens, districts have extensive programs for tackling anti-social behaviour and for drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and are often linked with Housing First provision, domestic abuse, engaging communities in setting local policing priorities and tackling enforcement issues in licensing, fly-tipping and environmental crime, to name but a few. During the pandemic, in two-tier areas it was often district councils that stepped up to either take on the support of those who were shielding or help mobilise hyperlocal resources to do so.
Forgive me for perhaps labouring the point a little, but the premise of the Bill, which seeks to override the very important role that district councils play in our communities, may be based on a misunderstanding or an outdated view of what district councils actually do. Of course, on planning issues, when we are looking at big strategic planning, districts have to work in partnership with other bodies—the health service, local enterprise partnerships and county councils—but I contend that this means they must have a vote and a voice around that table. Therefore, I support my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment in this group, as I have with others in earlier sessions that give district councils—and indeed town and parish councils—the voice that they deserve and that their communities expect them to have.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 125A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, brings us back to a set of issues that we have discussed in a number of our earlier debates: the question of which authorities can prepare a proposal for the establishment of a combined county authority and submit the proposal to the Secretary of State. The amendment seeks to add second-tier district councils within the proposed CCA’s area to this list of authorities. However, as the noble Lord is aware, the Bill provides that only upper-tier local authorities—county councils and unitary councils—can be constituent members of a CCA. District councils cannot be constituent members of a CCA and, as such, cannot prepare and submit a proposal for a CCA.
Let me take the Committee through the rationale for this approach. When CCAs come into being, they will ensure that there is a mechanism for strategic decision-making across a functional economic area or whole-county geography; in other words, co-operation over matters for which upper-tier local authorities already have responsibility.
In the Government’s view, therefore, it makes sense to enable upper-tier local authorities to decide, albeit following appropriate consultation, whether a CCA across a wider geographic area might offer advantages for such whole-county strategic decision-making. That is not to say that district councils should have no voice in the way a CCA comes into being; quite the contrary. While we believe that it is right for district councils not to form part of the constituent membership of a CCA, they are nevertheless key stakeholders in the devolution process. As we stated in the levelling up White Paper, while we will negotiate devolution deals with upper-tier local authorities across a functional economic area or whole-county geography, we expect county councils to work closely with the district councils in their area during the formulation of the proposal and subsequently. This is exactly what has been happening to date, and we have been pleased to see it.
How can we ensure that the voice of district councils is heard as a CCA proposal is being put together? As discussed in Committee previously, authorities proposing a CCA must undertake a public consultation on the proposal. As key local stakeholders, district councils would be consulted. Their views would be reflected in any summary of consultation responses submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration.
The task of the Secretary of State is then to assess whether the consultation has been sufficient. In doing so, the Secretary of State will have regard to whether it reflects the views of a full range of local stakeholders, including district councils should there be any. The Cabinet Office principles for public consultations are very clear that those conducting a public consultation must consult the full range of local stakeholders, not simply local residents but businesses, public authorities, voluntary sector organisations and others with a legitimate interest. If the Secretary of State, mindful of those principles and in the light of the evidence presented, deems the consultation not to be adequate, they themselves must consult on the proposal. Any such consultation would include consulting district councils.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for giving way. I do not accept the principle that the district councils in an area, which are the democratically elected representatives for their people, are the same as all the other stakeholders that the noble Earl referred to and just another consultee in this process. Fundamentally, that is where the discussions we have had on this so far have given us such a deal of trouble. District councils have an elected mandate from the people they represent. I appreciate that there are very strong rules around Cabinet Office consultations and so on in the principles that the noble Earl has set out, but surely there must be a different approach to district councils because of the elected mandate that their representatives hold.
Earl Howe (Con)
I obviously listened with great care to the noble Baroness when she made her initial intervention. I take on board the point she made, which I understand. It was made by other noble Lords. I am trying to set out for the Committee the direction the Government are coming from in framing the Bill’s provisions.
I just want to emphasise a point that I made in an earlier debate, which may not be sufficiently appreciated. I look in particular at the noble Lord, Lord Mann. The Bill in no way removes any powers or functions of district councils, which are rightly their own sovereign bodies and will continue to exercise their own powers and functions within the broader context of the CCA. Indeed, as we have already debated, we fully expect that, in many cases, CCAs will decide to give district councils a seat at the table as non-constituent members, should they deem that this will usefully inform decision-making. It would be open to a CCA to give voting rights to such a non-constituent member, if it considered this appropriate. It is right that we should give CCAs that freedom. The sub-strategic matters for which district councils are primarily responsible will often be directly germane to the strategic issues being considered and decided on at CCA level.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for the points he made. As I am sure he is aware, we will immerse ourselves in the issues he raised on national development plans when we move to the parts of the Bill relating to planning, but I hope for now that that explanation will assist the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in understanding why—
Lord Lansley (Con)
I apologise for intervening at this late stage, having made no speech, but I would like to ask a couple of questions of my noble friend that relate to Clause 43. The first is a simple one. There is a reference to a combined authority being able to make a proposal relating to a new combined county authority. I am confused, since I understood that a combined county authority would not be able to encompass any part of the area of an existing combined authority. Is it anticipated that circumstances might arise where a combined authority would transfer some of its area to a new combined county authority? That is just a question for future reference.
Secondly, the clause includes a reference, which we have seen before, to an “economic prosperity board”—which I take in most cases to mean local enterprise partnerships—having the right to make a proposal or having the requirement to consent to a proposal for a new CCA. The Government announced in the Budget today that they intend, as they put it, to withdraw support for local enterprise partnerships from April 2024. What does this imply? How does the business community have a voice and through whom, since the Government intend the functions of the local enterprise partnerships to be devolved to local government? Would my noble friend at least agree that something might be said about this at an early stage, before we complete this section relating to what an economic prosperity board is supposed to do?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I think that my best course is to write to my noble friend on both issues. He is perfectly right that Clause 43(2)(e) refers to
“a combined authority the whole or any part of whose area is within the proposed area”
as being a body to which the section applies; that is to say, a body which may prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA for an area and submit that proposal to the Secretary of State. It would be wise of me to set down in writing the kinds of circumstances in which we envisage that particular geographic area playing a part in the formation of a CCA. On the questions my noble friend raised on economic prosperity boards, I again think it best that I should write to him.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that the policy for CCA establishment and operation, as reflected in the Bill, neither belittles nor marginalises the important role played by district councils. When a CCA is formed, any district councils within its geographic radius will be important stakeholders—it is very hard to see how they could not be—albeit alongside many others. However, they cannot be a constituent member of a co-operative local government grouping whose membership is determined by reference to strategic functions and powers which are the primary province of upper-tier and unitary authorities. That is the logic.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate; I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part and to the Minister for his very careful response. At heart, I come back to the contributions from my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on the importance of district councils to local democracy. It seems to me that there is a risk that they are ridden over roughshod in the Bill. I listened with care to what the Minister said at the end; it is interesting that he referred to them as being second-tier, but I am not sure that I accept that. I find that to be pejorative in itself. Housing, local planning and environmental health are not second-tier; they are the statutory body. There is a big risk here.
I have experience as a member of Birmingham City Council, where we had metropolitan counties and metropolitan district councils. To call Birmingham City Council second-tier to the then West Midlands County Council would have been greeted with absolute horror. I know that the powers were slightly different, because the met districts had more powers than the non-met districts, but the principle still arises.
I take what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said— I understand the point about leverage and economic development—but the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is surely right in saying that the district councils’ own responsibility in terms of the preparation of development plans means that, tactically if nothing else, they need to have a seat at the table. The trouble with being associates is that it really does not convey the importance that the district councils have.
I also sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, when he talked about geographically incoherent CCAs—surely, he is right. I am afraid that I have to refer back again to 1974: the proposals were made during the Heath Government, when Peter Walker was the Environment Secretary, but it fell to the 1974 Labour Government to preside over the new arrangements.
Do noble Lords remember Avon County Council, Humberside County Council and Hereford and Worcester? They were hated because people did not accept that they were coherent authorities. Put Worcestershire and Herefordshire together and you begin to see some of the problems: these CCAs are very artificial architecture, are they not, really? We will see these large units that will appear so remote from the public. The argument here is that at the very least, surely, we should make sure that the non-met district councils have a proper role and seat at the place. There have been a number of amendments and debates, and I think that between now and Report we have to find a way to signify that district councils are important. Having said that, it has been a good debate and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Scriven
“(3A) A CCA may, with the consent of its constituent authorities, request that the Chancellor of the Exchequer devolve further fiscal powers to that CCA to help its regeneration powers, and those fiscal powers may not be unreasonably withheld.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to assess the Government's willingness to empower a CCA to drive its regeneration plans forward using enhanced fiscal powers.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to the only amendment in this group, Amendment 128 in my name and signed by my noble friend Lord Shipley. This is a probing amendment to tease out the Government’s thinking on this issue. It was a deliberate decision to have this amendment in a group on its own because this really is the elephant in the room: fiscal devolution. We can talk about structures and systems but, without the proper levers of finance and autonomy at a local level, the structures and the systems will achieve very little and will not deliver the equalling up of areas and regions across the country.
I think we need to be clear about what this amendment is not about. This is not about handing down moneys raised by national taxation to areas so they have a little extra leeway on how that money can be spent. As welcome as this is, it is a small step that is not going to solve the regional inequalities that exist in the country. This is what the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands authority calls the “begging bowl approach”. It is nothing more than spending decentralisation. It was quite amusing, listening to the Chancellor earlier today talk about a pothole fund. The very notion that a Chancellor of the Exchequer stands up in the national Parliament to deal with potholes is ludicrous. A predetermined pot of money handed down, usually with strings from Whitehall, to have local areas determine key projects in areas to spend that money is not fiscal devolution.
It was also telling that the Chancellor today, in announcing that the West Midlands and Greater Manchester combined authorities will have departmental-type arrangements, sees these arrangements as nothing more than decentralisation of central government departmental spending. It is even more telling, as has been reported in the Financial Times, I think it was, that even when the areas get this extra leeway on how the money is spent, there may be a committee set up here in Westminster to oversee how that money is prioritised and then spent. Other parts of the world that understand and implement devolution will be laughing in disbelief at this ridiculous notion of local autonomy.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a brief contribution to this debate, because it goes to the heart of the discussion about whether we believe in decentralisation and about the role of local government in a decentralised country.
The levelling up White Paper says:
“We’ll usher in a revolution in local democracy.”
Later on, it states that local leaders in other countries have
“much greater revenue-raising powers”,
a point that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has just made. As I said at Second Reading, there is nothing about greater revenue-raising powers in the Bill, and the probing amendment that we have just heard moved puts that right by initiating a broader discussion.
I welcome some of the announcements in the Budget about devolving more powers to mayoral authorities and allowing local authorities to retain more of the business rates, but devolving greater ability to spend central government money and keeping more of their own money is not actually the move towards a more self-sufficient, independent and confident local government that many of us would like to see.
I take this opportunity to briefly restate a suggestion that I made in January. Over the next 10 years, some £25 billion in fuel duty will disappear as we all buy electric vehicles, and the revenue foregone will be met by road pricing, now made possible by in-car technology —a transition that successive Governments have ducked but, I suspect, will not be able to duck much longer. However, that revenue from road pricing should not go to the Treasury or central government; it should complement the existing revenue from parking and congestion charges, where it would logically sit, and go to the larger units of local government which we have been debating today. That would give local government greater autonomy and a sounder basis for local taxation than the increasingly discredited and out-of-date council tax.
There are other ways of raising local revenue, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, touched on a few. However, in replying to this debate, I wonder whether my noble friend can show just a little bit of ankle on the Government’s thinking—whether they are really interested in empowering genuine local democracy by giving the sort of powers implied in this amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to this very good and interesting probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Young, who I know has great expertise in local government. We represented different parts of the London Borough of Ealing in different capacities over many years.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has not compared apples with apples but apples with pears. We are a unitary state—we are not a federal state like Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy or France, where they have regional government and a culture of accretion of power to the local level. Therefore, we have to have some central sanction and control of the disbursal of funds. So I do not think that the noble Lord is necessarily comparing the situation that we are in wholly accurately.
However, the noble Lord makes a very astute point about the hoarding of power, particularly financial power, by the Treasury. Any Minister will tell you that, over the years, the Treasury has not wanted to give power away and has wanted to bring in power. The noble Lord is absolutely right that far too much of the funding of core local services is in effect subject to the begging-bowl approach, as enunciated by Andy Street, the executive mayor of the West Midlands.
The problem with the situation that we now have—the disparity of local councils being responsible to their electorate for decisions, in effect, taken centrally—is that central government of whatever party is in power gets the income in and can make those judgments based on its manifesto, but it is local councillors and officers who are accountable and often take the brickbats for failures. For instance, many people have argued for many years about residential real estate investment trusts leveraging private sector money to provide new, good-quality housing for young people in particular. The Treasury has never really advanced that properly, and local government could be very much involved in it. Social care is another area. All Governments should look at tax breaks for providing extra care facilities—in terms of nutrition, housing, exercise and so on—for old people from the age of 60 all the way through to death, as many countries have across the world. That is an example of a central government policy that could also help local government.
I have great sympathy for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I hope there is further debate on it. It cannot be right that we cannot follow other modern liberal democracies such as the United States where local authorities and mayors have the capacity, for instance, to raise funds for the issuance of bonds, local infrastructure and capital projects. We have very restrictive financial and legal rules in this country that prevent us doing the same. On that basis, we have begun a good debate and I look to my noble friends on the Front Bench to run with it and, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, show some ankle, as it is long overdue.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, we have begun the debate. That is the intention of this probing amendment, because we must have it.
Today’s Budget decentralises—but does not devolve—some powers, although not fiscal ones, to combined authorities, which is welcome but comparatively minor. In other words, if a combined authority was able to adjust a block grant and make different decisions on how to commit expenditure from it, that would be welcome. However, it is not a fiscal policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, it would be helpful if the Government could explain their thinking on devolving real fiscal powers.
I would pick up the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on one statement. He said that we are not a unitary state. That would be hard to explain in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, and it goes to the heart of the problem as I see it. Substantial devolved powers, including fiscal ones, reside in Scotland, Wales and, theoretically, Northern Ireland that do not apply in England. Yet England is a country of 56 million people. It is far too big to operate out of centralised control in Whitehall, but there is a very strong argument for saying that, in terms of Treasury control and the Government’s desire to do things on a hub and spoke model in which all the financial resources are controlled in London, England is a unitary state.
I want to add one thing to the excellent contribution from my noble friend Lord Scriven and the other contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, which I really appreciated. Can the Government explain why Scotland and Wales can have fiscal powers but no constituent part of England is permitted to have them? That is the nub of the problem, and it is why starting the debate on this issue is very important.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to add to the political breadth of this debate and to offer Green support for the introduction of this amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley. Localism is at the absolute heart of Green politics, but I think we have seen right across your Lordships’ Chamber a great desire for an end in England to the incredible concentration of power and resources in Westminster.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley for raising this important part of the levelling-up agenda. I of course also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for linking it to the estimable White Paper on levelling up which, in many ways, has pointed to the importance of full devolution being equated with autonomy over local funding.
At the moment—I have probably said this before in the Chamber—we have the delegation of powers and funding from the centre to local government, be it combined authorities or local councils. This is therefore an important debate because, if we really want to be on the path to devolution, we have to address the issue of more autonomy and fiscal powers for local government.
The Minister may wish to pause at this point and take time over the weekend to refer to a House of Commons report that called for more autonomy and fiscal powers for local government. To be fair, it is 10 years old but sometimes, these big changes take a long time. It was published by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which was of course all-party. I draw the Minister’s attention to two elements of the conclusion, and I hope she will then have time to read more of it:
“Power and finance must go together if local government is to become an equal partner… any attempt to make the relationship between central and local government more balanced would be meaningless without giving local government its own source of revenue… to achieve fully the potential of localism, a key plank of the Government’s policy platform, local government requires financial freedoms.”
The report stated that the Government, under the same political colours as now, should consider giving local authorities in England a share of the existing income tax for England. The committee did not propose a change in income tax rates, but:
“The concept of tax transparency would allow local people to see more clearly what their taxes pay for locally and encourage them to hold local councils to account for their expenditure.”
I agree. There is obviously much more in that report.
The debate here is about having real devolution. If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can have it, why not Yorkshire, the population of which is bigger than each of them?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Why not Hertfordshire, with a population of 1.2 million people? I join the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Young, for drawing us back to the White Paper and the ambition contained therein. One of the key themes of discussion on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill so far has been the missed opportunity to tackle some of the critical financial issues that, in my view, are holding local government back from playing as full a part as it can in delivering the Bill’s stated agenda and missions. There is a significant lack of ambition in not taking this further, described by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, as the elephant in the room. The noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, rightly highlighted that a key aspect of this is the extent to which the Government seek to reduce the current chronic overcentralisation of decision-making in the UK by empowering CCAs with enhanced fiscal powers. A great deal more could be done in that regard.
In the probing and thoughtful report referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the LGA carried out a comparative study of fiscal devolution in the UK, Holland, Germany and Switzerland. It concluded that the UK should be working with local government to explore the full extent of fiscal devolution and what it could add to ensure that authorities have the strongest financial muscle to deliver what they know their areas most need. Commenting on the Netherlands, for example, the report says that
“fiscal freedom means that the broad suite of local taxes available to Dutch municipalities, and their tendency to collaborate cross borders, gives local government more placemaking levers while also providing residents with greater transparency on council finances. Fiscal freedom means a difference between money for core services and for place-specific social and cultural issues. It does not argue for fiscal autonomy with the idea that local government can become fiscally self-sustaining units of tax and spend but focuses on the potential that revenue-raising could have for placemaking.”
That goes right to the heart of this argument.
Even with the so-called trail-blazer authorities in Manchester and the West Midlands, one often gets the impression that achieving the fiscal freedoms they feel they need to serve their communities is like getting blood out of a stone. In previous sessions we commented frequently on the regressive, unhelpful and expensive method of creating multiple funding pots that means councils have to waste their precious funds pulling bids together.
If the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, were adopted, or something very similar to it, it would set into legislation the devolution of fiscal powers that, in my view, should always have been in the Bill. On Budget Day, it is important to say that no one in local government believes that a magic money tree is coming our way. I quote the LGA report again:
“Fiscal devolution entails the same suite of local taxes as we currently have in the UK, except with a higher level of devolution of central taxes. Unlike with fiscal freedom, this would not necessitate the introduction of ‘new’ taxes, but rather a reconsideration of the obligations and duties of each level of government. If fiscal devolution deals were done on the basis of local need for finance, following this German model would mean local authorities could fund their own care services in line with their own requirements.”
Europe also benefits from federalised banking institutions. How much more ambitious could local government be if that were the case here?
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to all finance being controlled from London. I am pleased to say that, in Wales, the Labour Government have already developed this and are making great strides in developing local banking institutions. Incidentally, Wales is also undertaking a comprehensive review of council tax.
Earlier this week a Question was asked in your Lordships’ House on the huge potential of pension funds in contributing to fiscal devolution. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke about the extent to which local government and local decision-making is controlled by national finance, with council tax set by Parliament, business rates set by the Treasury and even rents set by DLUHC. That does not make any sense. It is a nonsense, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, to end up needing a pothole fund. When that announcement was made earlier today in the Budget, my first comment was, “Why don’t you fund local government properly? Then we could fix our own potholes.”
These revenue-raising powers are important to local government. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly pointed at self-sufficient, independent and confident local government, and finding ways of delivering that through a different fiscal settlement. That is really important. We are not a federal state, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, but surely an aim of the Bill must be to create the kind of state where we can have a much more effective system of fiscal devolution, with local government having the freedoms to fund itself properly.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The noble Baroness is making a very good point, but she will no doubt agree with me that sometimes things go wrong— for instance in the recent experiences in Slough and Thurrock —with inappropriate spending or error. In the absence of the Audit Commission, which I remind noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches was abolished under the coalition Government, surely there must be some sanction at central government for inappropriate expenditure. It may be just incompetence, and not even at a criminal level. In the absence of an equivalent to the National Audit Office for local government, there must be ways for Ministers to exercise discretion on financial issues in local government on behalf of taxpayers.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not disagree that audit is required. We debated that earlier on the Bill. The authorities mentioned are Conservative authorities, as in Northampton, where my good friends in Corby lost their council because of the actions of a council of another political persuasion. That is a political point, which I probably should not make here.
A proper consideration of the role of further fiscal powers, with full engagement of local government— I am not suggesting that this is done to us because it would go against all the principles that we are talking about—could provide the basis for an empowered, innovative and dynamic shift for CCAs and their constituent members, sitting alongside the completion of the fair funding review, which has been outstanding for years now and which we have discussed previously.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 128 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, relates to the potential fiscal powers of combined county authorities, although we were slowly moving into a debate on English devolution, which we should leave for another time.
As set out in the levelling-up White Paper, level 3 devolution deal areas can look to finance local initiatives for residents and businesses. These include regeneration through a mayoral precept on council tax, and supplements on business rates. The Government are already considering putting powers in the hands of local people through greater fiscal freedoms and are exploring this further fiscal devolution, initially through the trail-blazer devolution deals with Greater Manchester and the West Midlands combined authorities. Negotiations are ongoing and progressing well. It says in my notes that they are expected to conclude in early 2023, so I assume that it will be very soon.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has shown that this is not a party-political issue, but an issue for those of us who believe that you cannot deal with levelling up unless you give real fiscal powers to local areas that require them, to be able to make autonomous decisions in the locality on where to invest and where to make the biggest changes. It is also about stopping this particular view in England that local areas have to look to Westminster to be able to make decisions that many local areas across the vast majority of the western world, whether they are federal or not, can take.
I reiterate what my noble friend Lord Shipley said: we are not a unitary state. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, fiscal devolution exists. We are talking predominantly about 56 million people in England, where fiscal devolution is totally off the table at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, was quite right to point out that, in itself, the Bill does not bring about fiscal devolution; it brings about departmental decentralisation, with predetermined spending limits being able to be made a little differently at the local level. Everything that the Minister said reinforces that view. Nothing in the Bill significantly gives further fiscal devolution to local areas if they so wish. In fact, she made the same mistake again: she talked about the trail-blazers in the West Midlands and Greater Manchester that have been announced today. As welcome as they are, they are not fiscal devolution. They are the decentralisation of departmental spending decisions; that is the fundamental issue.
This debate, on all sides of the Chamber, has stipulated that the Government are not going far enough and the Bill does not go far enough. We may have to return to this on Report, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56)
A1 In section 69(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (interpretation), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Trustee Investments Act 1961 (c. 62)
A2 In section 11(4)(a) of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 (local authority investment schemes), after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Government (Records) Act 1962 (c. 56)
A3 The Local Government (Records) Act 1962 is amended as follows.A4 In section 2(6) (acquisition and deposit of records), after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, to a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.A5 In section 8(1) (interpretation), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (c. 88)
A6 In section 28(5)(a) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (retention or resumption of land required for public purposes), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Transport Act 1968 (c. 73)
A7 The Transport Act 1968 is amended as follows.A8 (1) Section 9 (Areas, Authorities and Executives) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)—(a) in paragraph (a)(i), after “a combined authority area” insert “or a combined county authority area”;(b) after paragraph (ab) insert—“(ac) any reference to a “combined county authority” is to an authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 for an area which is or includes a metropolitan county;(ad) any reference to a “combined county authority area” is to an area for which a combined county authority is established;”;(c) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (ia) insert—“(iaa) in relation to a combined county authority area, the combined county authority;”.(3) In subsection (2), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”. (4) In subsection (3), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(5) In subsection (5) for “or a combined authority area” substitute “a combined authority area or a combined county authority area”.A9 In section 9A (general functions of Authorities and Executives), in each of subsections (3), (5), (6)(a) and (b), (7) and (8), after “combined authority area” insert “, combined county authority area”.A10 (1) Section 10 (general powers of Executives) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (3), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(4) In subsection (5), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A11 In section 10A(1) (further powers of Executives), for “or combined authority area” substitute “, combined authority area or combined county authority area”.A12 In section 12(1) (borrowing powers of Executive), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A13 In section 14(1) (accounts of Executive), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A14 (1) Section 15 (further functions of Authority) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (6), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A15 In section 16(1) (annual report by Authority and Executive), after “combined authority area” insert “, combined county authority area”.A16 (1) Section 20 (special duty with respect to railway passengers) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (2A), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A17 (1) Section 23 (consents of, or directions, by Minister) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (2), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(4) In subsection (3), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A18 In section 56(6) (assistance by Minister or local authority towards expenditure on public transport), after paragraph (bc) insert—“(bd) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”A19 (1) Schedule 5 (Passenger Transport Executives) is amended as follows.(2) In Part 2, in paragraph 2, after “the combined authority area”, in both places it occurs, insert “, the combined county authority area”.(3) In Part 3, in paragraph 11, after “a combined authority area”, insert “, a combined county authority area”.Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969 (c. 2)
A20 In section 1(3) of the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969 (provision for grants), for “and a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act and a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (c. 57)
A21 In section 3(2)(b) of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (employers exempted from insurance), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (c. 39)
A22 In section 1(4) of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (provision for grants), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“1A “(1) Section 70 (restriction on promotion of Bills for changing local government areas, etc) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.1B In section 80(2)(b) (disqualification for election and holding office as member of local authority), after “combined authority” insert “, combined county authority”.1C In section 85(4) (vacation of office by failure to attend meetings), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.1D In section 86(2) (declaration of vacancy by local authority), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.1E In section 92(7) (proceedings for disqualification)—(a) for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”, and(b) for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.1F In section 99 (meetings and proceedings of local authorities), after “combined authorities,” insert “combined county authorities,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“3A In section 138C(1) (application of sections 138A and 138B to other authorities), after paragraph (n) insert—“(na) a combined county authority;”.3B In section 142(1B) (provision of information relating to matters affecting local government), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”.3C (1) Section 146A (joint authorities etc) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)—(a) in the opening words, after “(1ZE)” insert “, (1ZEA)”, and (b) after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (1ZB), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”.(4) After subsection (1ZE) insert—“(1ZEA) A combined county authority is not to be treated as a local authority for the purposes of section 111 (but see section 47 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023).”3D In section 175(3B) (allowances for attending conferences and meetings), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”.3E In section 176(3) (payment of expenses), for “and a combined authority” substitute “a combined authority and a combined county authority”.3F In section 223(2) (appearance of local authorities in legal proceedings), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3G In section 224(2) (arrangements by principal councils for custody of documents), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.3H In section 225(3) (deposit of documents with proper officer), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.3I In section 228(7A) (inspection of documents), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.3J In section 229(8) (photographic copies of documents) after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3K In section 230(2) (reports and returns), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.3L In section 231(4) (service of notice on local authorities), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3M In section 232(1A) (public notices), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3N In section 233(11) (service of notices by local authorities), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3P In section 234(4) (authentication of documents), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3Q In section 236(1) (procedure for byelaws), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.3R In section 236B(1) (revocation of byelaws), after paragraph (e) insert—“(f) a combined county authority.”3S In section 238 (evidence of byelaws), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.3T In section 239(4A) (power to promote or oppose bills), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“4A In Part 1A of Schedule 12 (meetings and proceedings of joint authorities etc), in paragraph 6A, for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a consequential amendment to Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“Employment Agencies Act 1973 (c. 35)
4B In section 13(7) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (interpretation), after paragraph (fzc) insert—“(fzd) the exercise by a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 of any of its functions;”Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7)
4C The Local Government Act 1974 is amended as follows.4D In section 25(1) (authorities subject to investigation), after paragraph (cf) insert—“(cg) any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”4E (1) Section 26C (referral of complaints by authorities) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (6), after paragraph (f) insert—“(g) in relation to a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, a member of a constituent council of the authority;”(3) After subsection (8) insert—“(9) For the purposes of subsection (6)(g)—(a) a county council is a constituent council of a combined county authority if the area of the county council, or part of that area, is within the area of the combined county authority;(b) a district council is a constituent council of a combined county authority if the area of the district council is within the area of the combined county authority.”Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (c. 37)
4F In section 28(6) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (restrictions on disclosure of information), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57)
4G In section 44 of the Local Government Act 1976 (interpretation of Part 1), in the definition of “local authority”—(a) in paragraph (a), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”;(b) in paragraph (c), after “section 103 of that Act, insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (c. 80)
4H In section 5(3) of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (no statutory tenancy where landlord’s interest belongs to local authority), after paragraph (bbzb) insert—“(bbzc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Rent Act 1977 (c. 42)
4I In section 14(1) of the Rent Act 1977 (landlord’s interest belonging to local authority etc), after paragraph (cbc) insert— “(cbd) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (c. 43)
4J In section 3A(8) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (excluded tenancies and licences), after paragraph (ab) insert—“(ac) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65)
4K The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as follows.4L In section 2(1) (duty of authorities to publish information), after paragraph (kac) insert—“(kad) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”4M In section 98(8A) (disposal of land at direction of Secretary of State), after paragraph (ezb) insert—“(ezc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”4N In section 99(4) (directions to dispose of land), after paragraph (dbzb) insert—“(dbzc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”4P In section 100(1)(a) (interpretation and extent of Part 10), for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.4Q In Schedule 16 (bodies to whom Part 10 applies), after paragraph 5BZB insert—“5BZBA A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (c. 14)
4R In section 4C(4) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (power of senior traffic commissioner to give guidance and directions), in paragraph (e), after “of combined authorities” insert “established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, of combined county authorities established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (c. 67)
4S In section 17(4)(a) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (local authority land), in the definition of “local authority”, for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30)
4T The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 is amended as follows.4U In section 33(9) (enforceability by local authorities of covenants relating to land)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”; (b) in paragraph (b), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.4V In section 41(13) (lost and uncollected property), in the definition of “local authority”, after paragraph (ezb) insert—“(ezba) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Stock Transfer Act 1982 (c. 41)
4W In Schedule 1 to the Stock Transfer Act 1982 (specified securities), in paragraph 7(2)(a), after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28)
4X In section 60(3) of the County Courts Act 1984 (rights of audience), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Government Act 1985 (c. 51)
4Y The Local Government Act 1985 is amended as follows.4YA In section 72(5) (accounts and audit), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”4YB In section 73(2) (financial administration), after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Transport Act 1985 (c. 67)
4YC The Transport Act 1985 is amended as follows.4YD In section 27A(7)(b) (additional powers where service not operated as registered), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.4YE In section 64(1)(a) (consultation with respect to policies), after “combined authority,” insert “combined county authority,”.4YF In section 93(8)(b) (travel concession schemes), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.4YG In section 106(4) (grants for transport facilities and services), after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) any combined county authority;”.4YH In section 137 (general interpretation), after subsection (5A) insert—“(5B) References in this Act to a combined county authority are references to a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)
4YI (1) Section 4 of the Housing Act 1985 (other descriptions of authority) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)(e), after “combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.(3) In subsection (2), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;” Housing Associations Act 1985 (c. 69)
4YJ In section 106(1) (minor definitions) of the Housing Associations Act 1985, in the definition of “local authority”—(a) for “and a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act and a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”;(b) after “such a combined authority,” insert “such a combined county authority,”.Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (c. 70)
4YK In section 38 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (minor definitions), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Government Act 1986 (c. 10)
4YL The Local Government Act 1986 is amended as follows.4YM In section 6(2)(a) (interpretation and application of Part 2), after “a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act,”, and on a new line, insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.4YN In section 9(1)(a) (interpretation and application of Part 3), after “a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009,”, and on a new line, insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (c. 31)
4YP In section 58(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (exempt landlords and resident landlords), for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9)
4YQ In Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1988 (public supply or works contracts: the public authorities), after the entry for a combined authority established under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, and on a new line, insert “A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“Housing Act 1988 (c. 50)
9A The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows.9B In section 74(8) (transfer of land and other property to housing action trusts), after paragraph (fc) insert—“(fd) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”9C In Schedule 1 (tenancies which cannot be assured tenancies), in paragraph 12(2), after paragraph (fb) (and before the “and” at the end of that paragraph) insert— “(fc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)
9D In section 144(2)(a)(i) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security), for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts consequential amendments to the Housing Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“9E The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is amended as follows.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces the consequential amendments to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 268, line 16.
“10A In section 152(2) (interpretation), after paragraph (izb) insert—“(izc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”10B In section 157(6) (periodic payments of grants)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (j), and(b) after paragraph (k) insert—“(l) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”10C (1) Schedule 1 (political balance on local authority committees etc) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 2(1), for “(jb)” substitute “(jba)”.(3) In paragraph 4(1), in paragraph (a) of the definition of “relevant authority”, for “(jb)” substitute “(jba)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts consequential amendments to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)
10D The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.10E In section 252(12) (procedure for making orders), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.10F In Schedule 14 (procedure for footpaths and bridleways orders), in paragraph 1(3), in the definition of “council”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”. Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c. 13)
10G In section 54(1)(e)(ii) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (duty to give information), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts consequential amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (c. 25)
13A In section 1(10) of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (power to provide advice and assistance), after paragraph (dzb) insert—“(dzc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Railways Act 1993 (c. 43)
13B The Railways Act 1993 is amended as follows.13C In section 25(1) (public sector operators not to be franchisees)—(a) after paragraph (ca) insert—“(cb) any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(b) in paragraph (d), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.13D In section 149(5) (service of documents), in the definition of “local authority”, for “and a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (c. 40)
13E In section 79A of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (meaning of “local authority”: England), after paragraph (mb) insert—“(mc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)
13F After section 86B of the Environment Act 1995 insert—“86C Role of combined county authorities in relation to action plans(1) Where a local authority in the area of a combined county authority intends to prepare an action plan it must notify the combined county authority.(2) Where a combined county authority has been given a notification under subsection (1) by a local authority, the combined county authority must, before the end of the relevant period, provide the local authority with proposals for particular measures the combined county authority will take to contribute to the achievement, and maintenance, of air quality standards and objectives in the area to which the plan relates.(3) Where a combined county authority provides proposals under subsection (2), the combined county authority must— (a) in those proposals, specify a date for each particular measure by which it will be carried out, and(b) as far as is reasonably practicable, carry out those measures by those dates.(4) An action plan prepared by a local authority in the area of a combined county authority must set out any proposals provided to it under subsection (2) (including the dates specified by virtue of subsection (3)(a)).(5) In this section “combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (c. 53)
13G In section 3(2) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (ineligible applicants), after paragraph (jc) insert—“(jd) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37)
13H In section 17(2) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (duty to consider crime and disorder implications), after “a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;”, and on a new line, insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29)
14A In section 211(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (public sector operators)—(a) after paragraph (ca) insert—“(cb) any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(b) in paragraph (d), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)
14B In Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities), after paragraph 19B insert—“19C A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Transport Act 2000 (c. 38)
14C The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.14D In section 108(4) (local transport plans), after paragraph (ca) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(cb) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”14E (1) Section 109 (further provision about local transport plans in England) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2A), in the opening words, for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (2B)—(a) in the opening words, for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”; (b) in paragraph (a), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”;(c) in paragraph (c), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14F (1) Section 113 (role of metropolitan district councils) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”.(3) in subsection (2A), in each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14G In section 123A(4) (franchising schemes)—(a) after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a mayoral CCA;”;(b) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (e);(c) at the end of paragraph (f) insert “, or(g) a combined county authority which is not a mayoral CCA.”;(d) in the words after paragraph (g), for “(f)” substitute “(g)”.14H In section 123C(2) (consent of the Secretary of State and notice)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a);(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “,(c) the area of a mayoral CCA, or(d) the combined area of two or more mayoral CCAs.”14I In section 123G (response to consultation), after subsection (4) insert—“(5) If a franchising authority are a mayoral CCA, the function of deciding whether to make a proposed franchising scheme is a function of the combined county authority exercisable only by the mayor acting on behalf of the combined county authority (including in a case where the decision is to make a scheme jointly with one or more other franchising authorities).”14J In section 123M (variation of scheme), after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) If a franchising authority are a mayoral CCA, the function of deciding whether to make a proposed variation is a function of the combined county authority exercisable only by the mayor acting on behalf of the combined county authority (including in a case where the decision is to act jointly to vary a scheme).”14K In section 123N (revocation of scheme), after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) If a franchising authority are a mayoral CCA, the function of deciding whether to make a proposed revocation is a function of the combined county authority exercisable only by the mayor acting on behalf of the combined county authority (including in a case where the decision is to act jointly to revoke a scheme).”14L (1) Section 157 (grants to Integrated Transport Authorities and combined authorities) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading, for “and combined authorities” substitute “, combined authorities and combined county authorities”.(3) After subsection (1A) insert—“(1B) The Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants to a combined county authority for the purpose of enabling the authority to carry out any of their functions.”14M (1) Section 162 (interpretation of Part 2) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—““mayoral CCA” has the meaning given by section 25(8) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(3) After subsection (5A) insert—“(5B) In this Part “combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”14N (1) Section 163 (road user charging schemes: preliminary) is amended as follows.(2) In each of subsections (3)(bb), (3)(cc) and (4A), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.(3) After subsection (5A) insert—“(5B) In this Part “combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”14P (1) Section 164 (local charging schemes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3)—(a) in the opening words, for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (b), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14Q (1) Section 165 (joint local charging schemes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3)—(a) in the opening words, for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (b), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14R In section 165A(1)(b) (joint local-ITA charging schemes), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14S (1) Section 166 (joint local-London charging schemes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3)—(a) in the opening words, for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (b), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14T (1) Section 166A (joint ITA-London charging schemes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)(b), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3)(b), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.14U In section 167(2)(b) (trunk road charging schemes), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”.14V In section 168(2) (charging schemes to be made by order)— (a) after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”;(b) for “or the combined authority” substitute “, the combined authority or the combined county authority”.14W (1) Section 170 (charging schemes: consultation and inquiries) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1A)(b), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (7)(a), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.14X In section 177A(1) (power to require information), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.14Y In section 193(1) (guidance), after “combined authorities” insert “, combined county authorities”.14YA In section 194 (information), in each of subsections (1), (2) and (6), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.14YB In section 198(1) (interpretation of Part 3), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” has the meaning given by section 163 (5B);”.14YC (1) Schedule 12 (road user charging and workplace parking levy: financial provisions) is amended as follows.(2) In each of paragraphs 2(4), 3(2) and 7(5)(c), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.(3) In paragraph 8(3)(aa), for “and combined authorities” substitute “, combined authorities and combined county authorities”.(4) In paragraph 8(4)(aa), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.(5) In paragraph 11A—(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for “or combined authority’s” substitute “, combined authority’s or combined county authority’s”;(b) in sub-paragraph (4), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.(6) In each of paragraphs 11B(1) and 11C(1) and (3), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“Courts Act 2003 (c. 39)
18A In section 41(6) of the Courts Act 2003 (disqualification of lay justices who are members of local authorities), after paragraph (eb) insert—“(ec) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c. 5)
18B The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.18C In section 27A (default powers), in the heading and in the section, after “combined authority” insert “, combined county authority”.18D (1) Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London, combined authority or county council) is amended as follows. (2) In the heading, after “combined authority” insert “, combined county authority”.(3) After paragraph 7 insert—“Default powers exercisable by combined county authority
7ZA In this Schedule—“combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;“constituent planning authority” in relation to a combined county authority, means—(a) a county council, metropolitan district council or non-metropolitan district council which is the local planning authority for an area within the area of the combined county authority, or(b) a joint committee established under section 29 whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined county authority.7ZB If the Secretary of State—(a) thinks that a constituent planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and(b) invites the combined county authority to prepare or revise the document,the combined county authority may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document.7ZC (1) This paragraph applies where a development plan document is prepared or revised by a combined county authority under paragraph 7ZB.(2) The combined county authority must hold an independent examination.(3) The combined county authority—(a) must publish the recommendations and reasons of the person appointed to hold the examination, and(b) may also give directions to the constituent planning authority in relation to publication of those recommendations and reasons.(4) The combined county authority may—(a) approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications, as a local development document, or(b) direct the constituent planning authority to consider adopting the document by resolution of the authority as a local development document.7ZD (1) Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 7ZC(2)—(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the combined county authority, and(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).(2) The combined county authority must give reasons for anything they do in pursuance of paragraph 7ZB or 7ZC(4).(3) The constituent planning authority must reimburse the combined county authority—(a) for any expenditure that the combined county authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 5 and which the constituent planning authority failed or omitted to do as mentioned in that paragraph;(b) for any expenditure that the combined county authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 7ZC(2). (4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the combined county authority may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the authority considers just between the authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”(4) In paragraph 8—(a) in sub-paragraph (1), after paragraph (b) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(ba) under paragraph 7ZB by a combined county authority,”;(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(a)—(i) after “6(4)(a)” insert “, 7ZC(4)(a)”;(ii) after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”;(c) in sub-paragraph (3)(a), after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”;(d) in sub-paragraph (5), after “6(4)(a)” insert “, 7ZC(4)(a)”;(e) in sub-paragraph (7)—(i) in paragraph (b), after “6(4)(a)” insert “, 7ZC(4)(a)”;(ii) in the words after paragraph (b), after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”.(5) In paragraph 9(3), after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”.(6) In paragraph 12, after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”.(7) In paragraph 13(1), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”.Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (c. 21)
18E In section 1 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (fire and rescue authorities), for subsection (5) substitute—“(5) This section is also subject to—(a) an order under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 which transfers the functions of a fire and rescue authority to a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act;(b) an order under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 which transfers the functions of a fire and rescue authority to a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of that Act.”Children Act 2004 (c. 31)
18F In section 50(7) of the Children Act 2004 (intervention - England), after “combined authority”, in each place where it occurs, insert “or combined county authority”.Railways Act 2005 (c. 14)
18G In section 33(2) of the Railways Act 2005 (closure requirements), after paragraph (da) insert—“(db) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Childcare Act 2006 (c. 21)
18H In section 15 of the Childcare Act 2006 (powers of Secretary of State to secure proper performance), after subsection (6A) insert—“(6B) If any functions of an English local authority under this Part are exercisable by a combined county authority by virtue of section 16 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—(a) a reference in any of subsections (3) to (6) to an English local authority includes a reference to the combined county authority, and (b) a reference in those subsections to functions under this Part is, in relation to the combined county authority, to be read as a reference to those functions so far as exercisable by the combined county authority.”Education and Inspections Act 2006 (c. 40)
18I (1) Section 123 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (education and training to which Chapter 3 of Part 8 applies) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (ea) insert—“(eb) further education for persons aged 19 or over which is wholly or partly funded by a combined county authority;”.(3) For subsection (5), substitute—“(5) In this section—“combined authority” means a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;“combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“20 In section 7A(2) (exercise of Secretary of State's public health functions), after paragraph (d) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(da) a combined county authority,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the consequential amendment to section 7A of the National Health Service Act 2006 as a result of the substitution of that section by the Health and Care Act 2022.
“20A In section 12ZB(7) (procurement regulations), in the definition of “relevant authority”, after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a combined county authority;”.20B In section 13UA(2) (guidance about joint appointments)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b), and(b) at the end of paragraph (c) insert “, or(d) one or more relevant NHS body and one or more combined county authority.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a further consequential amendment to the National Health Service Act 2006 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the consequential amendments to sections 13ZA and 14Z3A of the National Health Service Act 2006 as a result of the repeals of those sections by the Health and Care Act 2022.
“22A In section 65Z5(1) (joint working and delegation arrangements), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) a combined county authority.”22B In section 65Z6(1) (joint committees and pooled funds), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) a combined county authority.”” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts further consequential amendments to the National Health Service Act 2006 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 (c. 13)
25A In section 9(6)(b) of the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 (variation of reimbursement etc), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (c. 28)
25B The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 is amended as follows.25C In section 23(1) (definitions for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 1), in the definition of “public body”, after paragraph (g) insert—“(h) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”25D In section 104(2) (application of Chapter 1 of Part 5: partner authorities), after paragraph (ib) insert—“(ic) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts consequential amendments to the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“30A “(1) Section 102E (power to establish STBs) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (5), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a combined county authority;”.(3) In subsection (6), after paragraph (a) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(aa) the area of a combined county authority,”.30B In section 102F(7) (requirements in connection with regulations under section 102E), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a combined county authority;”.30C In section 102G(10) (constitution of STBs), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) in the case of a combined county authority, are the mayor for the area of the combined county authority (if there is one) and those members of the authority who are appointed from among the elected members of the authority's constituent councils (see section 8(4)(b) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023);”30D In section 102I(7) (transport strategy of an STB), after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) a combined county authority;”.30E In section 102J(7) (exercise of local transport functions), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a combined county authority;”.30F In section 102U, at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a body established as a combined county authority under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts further consequential amendments to the Local Transport Act 2008 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“31A In section 35(2) (mutual insurance: supplementary), after paragraph (r) insert—“(s) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a further consequential amendment to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (c. 22)
37A The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 is amended as follows.37B (1) Section 100 (provision of financial resources) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1AA) insert—“(1AB) The Secretary of State may secure the provision of financial resources under this subsection (whether or not the resources could be secured under subsection (1)) to any of the persons mentioned in subsection (1) in respect of functions under this Part that are exercisable by a combined county authority by virtue of regulations made under section 17(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”(3) In subsection (5), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”37C (1) Section 122 (sharing of information for education and training purposes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (fb) insert—“(fc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;(fd) a person providing services to a combined county authority;”.(3) In subsection (5)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (c), and(b) at the end of paragraph (d) insert “, or(e) any function of a combined authority under Part 4 that is exercisable by it by virtue of regulations made under section 17(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (c. 2)
37D The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 is amended as follows.37E In section 40(6) (access to local government meetings and documents), after paragraph (ja) insert—“(jb) a combined county authority,”.37F In section 44(1) (interpretation of Act), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”37G In Schedule 2, after paragraph 28 insert—“28ZA A combined county authority.”” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes consequential amendments to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 and the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
“37H The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 is amended as follows.37I (1) Section 1 (devolution: annual report) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “this Act” insert “or Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.(3) In subsection (2)—(a) in paragraph (c), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (e), after “combined authorities” insert “, combined county authorities”.(4) In subsection (4), after the definition of “combined authority” insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts further consequential amendments to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 274, line 25.
Policing and Crime Act 2017 (c. 3)
39 The Policing and Crime Act 2017 is amended as follows.40 In section 3 (collaboration agreements: specific restrictions), after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) A combined county authority that exercises the functions of a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 16 or 17 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 may only enter into a collaboration agreement where the functions of the authority to which the agreement relates are functions of a fire and rescue authority that the combined county authority is entitled to exercise.”41 In section 5(5) (collaboration agreements: definitions)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b);(b) after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) a combined county authority that exercises the functions of a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 16 or 17 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, or(e) an elected mayor who exercises the functions of a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 28 of that Act.”Technical and Further Education Act 2017 (c. 19)
42 The Technical and Further Education Act 2017 is amended as follows.43 In Schedule 3 (conduct of education administration: statutory corporations)—(a) in paragraph 13(b), in the inserted paragraph (ab), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph 38(c)— (i) after the definition of “combined authority”, insert—“““combined county authority” means an authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”,”(ii) in the definition of “director of children’s services”, in paragraph (b), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”.44 In Schedule 4 (conduct of education administration: companies)—(a) in paragraph 12(b), in the inserted paragraph (ab), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph 36(c)—(i) after the definition of “combined authority”, insert—“““combined county authority” means an authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”,”(ii) in the definition of “director of children’s services”, in paragraph (b), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”.Bus Services Act 2017 (c. 21)
45 In section 22(3) of the Bus Services Act 2017 (bus companies: limitation of powers of authorities in England), in the definition of “relevant authority”, after paragraph (c) insert—“(ca) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Digital Economy Act 2017 (c. 30)
46 The Digital Economy Act 2017 is amended as follows.47 In Schedule 4 (public service delivery: specified persons for the purposes of section 35), after paragraph 14 insert—“14A A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”48 In Schedule 5 (public service delivery: specified persons for the purposes of sections 36 and 37), after paragraph 8 insert—“8A A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”49 In Schedule 6 (public service delivery: specified persons for the purposes of sections 36 and 37), after paragraph 7 insert—“7A A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Data Protection Act 2018 (c.12)
50 In Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018 (special categories of personal data and criminal convictions etc data), in paragraph 23(3), after paragraph (h) insert—“(ha) a mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (c. 18)
51 (1) Section 12 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (duty to consider making regulations under section 11(1)(a) on request from mayor) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (7)—(a) in paragraph (a), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (i) insert— “(ia) in the case of the area of a combined county authority, the mayor for the area elected in accordance with section 25(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(3) In subsection (8), in the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 (c. 21)
52 The Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows.53 In section 1(7) (views of relevant authority in relation to local skills improvement plan), after paragraph (a) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(aa) a mayoral CCA within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (combined county authorities) (see section 25(8) of that Act),”54 (1) Section 4 (interpretation of sections 1 to 4) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(3) In subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) a combined county authority”.55 In section 19(2) (meaning of “relevant provider”), after paragraph (g) insert—“(ga) a combined county authority;”.56 In section 20(7) (meaning of “funding authority”), after paragraph (c) insert—“(ca) a combined county authority;”.57 In section 21(2) (interpretation of sections 19 to 21), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Health and Care Act 2022 (c. 31)
58 In section 180(2) of the Health and Care Act 2022 (licensing of cosmetic procedures), in the definition of “local authority”, after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Elections Act 2022 (c. 37)
59 The Elections Act 2022 is amended as follows.60 In section 37(1) (interpretation of Part 5), in the definition of “relevant elective office”, after paragraph (f) insert—“(fa) mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”61 In section 45(9) (meaning of “relevant election”), after paragraph (g) insert—“(ga) an election for the return of a mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”62 (1) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 (illegal practices) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (iv), and(b) after sub-paragraph (v) (but before the “and” at the end of that sub-paragraph) insert “or (vi) an election for the return of a mayor for the area of a combined county authority,”.(3) In sub-paragraph (4)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (b), and(b) at the end of paragraph (c) insert “, and“(d) as it applies in relation to an election for the return of a mayor for the area of a combined county authority by virtue of regulations under paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 2 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”(4) After sub-paragraph (5) insert—“(6) In this paragraph “combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”63 In paragraph 12(4) of Schedule 8 (voting and candidacy rights of EU citizens: transitional provision), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
Baroness Pinnock
“Local authorities to be allowed to choose their own voting system(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide that local authorities may choose the voting system used for local elections in their areas.(2) When determining whether to seek to introduce a new voting system a local authority must have regard to the benefits of reinvigorating local democracy in its area.(3) Regulations under this section must provide that local authorities may choose to elect councillors—(a) by thirds, or(b) on an all-out basis.(4) Regulations under this section must provide that local authorities may choose to elect councillors using—(a) first-past-the-post;(b) alternative vote;(c) supplementary vote;(d) single transferable vote;(e) the additional member system;(f) any other system that may be prescribed in the regulations.(5) Regulations under this section may make provision about— (a) how a local authority may go about seeking to change its voting system,(b) the decision-making process for such a change,(c) consultation, and(d) requirements relating to approval by the local electorate.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would enable local authorities to choose what voting system they use for local elections.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, it is by pure chance that this debate follows so neatly after the one we have just had about fiscal devolution and fiscal powers for devolved authorities. Unless we turbocharge our local democracy—and there is much in the Bill that takes powers away from local democracy—we will still be in the realm of “Westminster knows best” and “Westminster holds all the strings”, and we will simply become a subset of Westminster decision-making. Amendment 157 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Harris is all about improving the local democracy available to local councils and elected mayors.
I start by referring back to the long debates this House had on voter ID. To those of us who were suggesting that it might not be the best idea, the Government’s argument all along—in some cases, their only argument—was that it had worked in Northern Ireland for many years, and if it worked there it will work here. I want to apply that principle to this amendment.
The voting systems for local government in Northern Ireland are not first past the post but single transferable vote. If it works in Northern Ireland, as it has for many years, it can work here. But single transferable vote is not the only method of improving our local democracy and making sure that more voices are elected from more parts of our communities to take part in local decision-making. I will briefly go through some of the other systems and show the Committee how these are already in use in different parts of the country.
We will start with the additional member system. It is used for elections of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd and the London Assembly. This is a mixed system—some are elected by first past the post and others from a list system—but the outcome is more proportional to the votes as expressed by the electorate. So we already have an additional member system, not first past the post, in big elections in this country, and it works.
The second method is single transferable vote, as I have already described. It is a simple preferential voting system, just using a ranked system of one, two, three. It is used in Northern Ireland local government and the Assembly, and in Scottish local government elections. It works there; why can we not use it in English local council elections?
The third option is the alternative vote, which again ranks candidates, and this more proportional system is used in this very House to elect hereditaries if there is a vacancy. If there is more than one vacancy for hereditary Peers, the single transferable vote system is used. If it is good enough here, surely it can be good enough for local council elections in England. Let us be more like Northern Ireland.
The next system that could be adopted is the supplementary vote. Prior to its recent abolition, it was used to elect Mayors of London, the directly elected mayors in combined authorities, and police and crime commissioners. Very simply, it gives you two votes and two columns, and you can just stick your cross in one of each.
Those are all the systems that we can use in multiple ways. Mature democracies across the world seek to elect representatives in proportion to the expressed views of their electors. I do not like using this comparison, but I remind the Committee that the only other country that uses first past the post is Belarus, with which I am not sure we want to be aligned too much.
Democracy, and especially local democracy, works best when a range of views are heard. That is why all but a minority of democracies use some form of proportional voting system—except England, the home of democracy. The result could be the end of one-party councils or those with very large majorities; I include Liberal Democrat large-majority councils in this too. It is not healthy not to have different voices being heard when local councils make decisions.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Pinnock has just said. I put my name to her amendment because in my rapidly disappearing district council of Richmondshire a motion was almost unanimously agreed to support a system of voting proportionately. It was proposed and seconded by two of my colleagues on that council, Councillors Richard Good and Clive World. It is almost unheard of to have a council in Richmondshire vote together on an issue as contentious as this, so I was delighted when they agreed to forward a letter to the Government requesting a move away from the first past the post system to a fairer and more representative way of voting.
As it was, only two Conservative councillors voted against the motion. The motion they presented was as follows:
“First Past the Post (FPTP) originated when land-owning aristocrats dominated parliament and voting was restricted to property-owning men … In Europe”,
as we have heard,
“only the UK and authoritarian Belarus still use archaic single-round FPTP for general elections. Meanwhile, internationally, Proportional Representation (PR) is used to elect parliaments in more than 80 countries. Those countries tend to be more equal, freer and greener … PR ensures all votes count, have equal value, and those seats won match votes cast. Under PR, MPs and Parliaments better reflect the age, gender and protected characteristics of local communities and the nation. MPs better reflecting their communities leads to improved decision-making, wider participation and increased levels of ownership of decisions taken … PR would also end minority rule. In 2019, 43.6% of the vote produced a government with 56.2% of the seats and 100% of the power. PR also prevents ‘wrong winner’ elections such as occurred in 1951 and February 1974 … PR is already used to elect the parliaments and assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So why not Westminster? … Council therefore resolves to write to H.M. Government calling for a change in our outdated electoral laws to enable Proportional Representation to be used for general, local and mayoral elections.”
I could not have put it any better myself. I fully support my noble friend’s amendment and hope that the Government will consider it seriously before Report.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Harris of Richmond. I will really restrain myself and not make general comments about PR but speak only about a specific element of democracy.
I am tempted to make a one-sentence contribution, which is, “Democracy: it would be a good idea, wouldn’t it, if we had it?” We are talking about a local area deciding how to elect its own representatives. The amendment does not say, “You have to have proportional representation —the system that we know means that the number of councillors matches the number of votes and that the council or the Parliament reflects the views of the people, and that we know produces a better quality of governance.” It does not say any of those things. It merely says that each local area should be able to decide the system under which it governs itself.
Of course, I have to make some reference to the better quality of governance which is demonstrably the result of proportional electoral systems, and indeed to look at the other side of this, which is what has just been happening in Plymouth City Council, where a Tory council has gone out in the middle of the night to cut down more than 100 mature trees in the city centre, despite significant local resistance. That, of course, is a replay; they seem not to have learned at all from what happened a few years ago in Sheffield, where a Labour council, again in a one party state-type set-up, did the same thing, sneaking around the streets in the early hours of the morning to try to ensure that it could cut down trees against the will of residents. So we have there a case study, which is not even slanted in any particular political direction, of our current system not working.
Again, I stress that the amendment does not say that it will force the change on anyone; it simply says that people should be able to decide for themselves. In the previous group of amendments, we focused on the lack of power in local government because of its lack of resources. Well, take back control: that was crucial and remains a very strong, passionate feeling among the British people. This amendment gives a chance to take back control at the local level, which is clearly urgently needed.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I will make a brief contribution because tonight, in East Suffolk Council, where I now have the great privilege of living, there is to be a debate on the very subject of democracy at local government level. I have just received a copy of the speech that will be given by David Beavan, the councillor for Southwold ward. He will say—he has not yet said it—the following:
“The Conservative party won the last election with 38% of the vote, but this gave them an overwhelming majority with 71% of the councillors. We are not allowed to debate the unfair first past the post system but we can debate ways to mitigate it so that the silent majority of non-Conservative voters are represented … This administration used its majority as a sledge hammer to close down debate in this council and to pack every committee and outside body with their own … We believe there is a better way to run this council … Where all members of every party have an opportunity to work for East Suffolk … Where debate is open and considered not predetermined by a party political whip … Where opposition members are given a fair chance to make their point in meetings … Where officers are not dragged into petty party politics … Above all we need a Scrutiny committee that is not directed by the administration. An opposition chair would ensure this independence … East Suffolk today faces big challenges. We need to work together as a community and a council. We should set aside party politics after the election and knuckle down to govern fairly for all of East Suffolk.”
I entirely agree with him, and I note that in an earlier discussion on Monday the noble Earl the Minister said clearly that this Bill is all about getting rid of “central diktat” and giving local people an opportunity to have a say. This amendment from my noble friend gives an opportunity to do that. I hope it will be supported by the Government.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, we have had a short debate and it will be very interesting to see how the Government respond to it. I wait in hope that something can be done, as my noble friend said in moving this amendment, to turbocharge local democracy. There is no doubt that it needs turbocharging: we see elements of its alienation every day of the week. We are moving closer and closer not to better local democracy, but to perhaps better but certainly more intense local administration. I have spoken on that already today. My noble friend made the extremely powerful point, and certainly a very good debating point, that if ID cards are good enough for Northern Ireland, surely a proportional voting system is good enough for England. I hope the Government have a really plausible reason for not accepting that argument.
My noble friend Lady Harris has accurately reported, I am sure, the views of Richmondshire District Council—incidentally, it is in North Yorkshire, which we were of course discussing earlier today—and the value of every vote being equal and the opportunities for regeneration that flow from that. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, drew our attention to some examples of bad practice and pointed out the damaging impacts of single-party rule. Since we certainly think it is inappropriate, to say the least, in North Korea, it ought to be inappropriate in our town halls in England as well. Restoring that element of local choice and broader representation ought surely to be one of the objectives of this levelling-up Bill.
My noble friend Lord Foster of Bath drew attention to the not untypical situation with East Suffolk Council whereby a party with less than 40% of the vote finishes up with over 70% of the representation and therefore of the decision-making. We had debates earlier about the Government’s intention, set out clearly in the Bill, to suspend the operation of proportionality in local authorities in the formation of CCAs. I hope the Government Front Bench will take note of some of the malign consequences that can arise when proportionality is not adhered to. Of course, in terms of representation, a sense of alienation can grow in voters, and in non-voters but electors, who repeatedly say, “It’s not worth voting because they always get in”. That happens time and again, particularly in local government. Surely, we have to make sure that the voices of the silent ones—the voices being suppressed by that system—are in fact heard.
I want to hear the Government say, “There are things about this we do not like; we do not really want anything other than first past the post; but we do recognise that local communities, local councils, should have the right to choose for themselves the voting system they use”. My noble friend has set out in considerable detail a very compelling case: we are not suggesting throwing the whole system up in the air, but simply using systems already in operation in various parts of the United Kingdom, including in England.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Stunell. It has been a very interesting discussion. The arguments I have heard articulated many times over the years on voting methods have been rehearsed with great conviction this afternoon.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 157, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to enable each local authority to choose its own voting system. In doing so, the
“local authority must have regard to the benefits of reinvigorating local democracy in its area.”
We agree that a vigorous local democracy is vital; however, we take a different view as to how this will be best provided for.
First, we are clear on the merits of first past the post as a robust and secure way of electing representatives. It is well understood by voters and provides for strong, clear local accountability. It ensures a clear link between elected representatives and those who vote for them, in a manner that other voting systems may not. For those reasons, we have provided that, from this May’s elections, first past the post will also apply in voting for local authority and combined authority elected mayors, and for police and crime commissioners.
Secondly, we do not believe it would be right for the voting system to be a matter of local choice for particular councils. It is important that the voting system be clearly understood by electors and that they have confidence in it. Having different systems for neighbouring areas risks confusing electors, and any such confusion risks weakening public confidence in the electoral process.
A council being able to choose its voting system would also risk political manipulation. For example, the current controlling group on a council could seek to choose a system that it believes would favour it. While I accept that there could be various safeguards to mitigate that risk, I do not consider that it could be entirely removed.
Elections are the foundations of local democracy, which is central to our values and our being a free society; we should protect and nurture it. I recognise that all noble Lords in this Committee share that view, but I am afraid that what this amendment envisages would in practice be the kind of tinkering with the foundations of local democracy that I am clear we should avoid.
Finally, there are already relevant provisions in place under the local government and public health Act 2007 which enable district councils to change their scheme of elections. Those councils electing by thirds, where a third of council seats are up for re-election in each of three out of every four years, can move to whole-council elections, where all council seats are re-elected at once, every four years, and some councils currently holding whole-council elections, which formerly elected by thirds, can resolve to revert to electing by thirds.
Perhaps more importantly, experience has shown the merits of whole-council elections: facilitating stable, strategic local leadership, and delivering a clear programme for which the council can be held to account by the electorate. We encourage those councils still not holding whole-council elections to consider using the powers which Parliament has given them to switch to such elections. We would not wish to see councils which have not previously done so moving to elections by thirds.
Before I finish, I will just remind noble Lords that we had a referendum on changing first past the post in 2011, and 67.9% of the population voted against any change.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Would the Minister acknowledge that that was not giving the public the choice of a proportional representation voting system, where the seats would match votes?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
But it was about a change in the type of election and there was a very clear result against it. I consider that to be a very clear result in support of first past the post.
Therefore, although I appreciate the intentions behind this amendment, for all of those reasons I hope I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her Amendment 157.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate so that we can explore the issue, because it is a sort of twin part of fiscal devolution. This is not an arcane debate for election geeks; it is really important if we are going to renew our local democracy. The amendment is not asking very much; it is simply asking for local authorities to be allowed—there is an example of control from Whitehall—to choose their own voting system.
My noble friend Lord Stunell raised two important issues about first past the post. If electors feel that the outcome of an election is a foregone conclusion, they do not bother to vote. You can see that in turnouts across the country. It leads to apathy and cynicism, which are the last emotions that we need to see in our voters when we know that we need to reinvigorate our local democracy. Change is going to be important if we are going to narrow inequalities, which is what this levelling-up Bill should be all about. However, change can be divisive, so if you have a broader representation of views and hear more voices, you have a better chance of drawing people together to agree to a change—not cutting down trees in the middle of the night, which is apparently what happened in Tory-run Plymouth council.
I will just say one or two things about the response from the Minister. I thank her for replying and claiming that first past the post is the only one that allows the link with electors. So what are the Government doing then allowing Northern Ireland to use STV, Scotland to use STV for its local elections and Wales to use different systems? If it is so bad and does not make a link, what is going on here? Local government is powerful in those countries, and we need to make it powerful here.
My last point is that the Minister, if I heard her right, said that if we introduce a system where local authorities can choose which voting system they wish to use, the current political makeup of a council would choose a system that suited them. But the whole point of a more proportional system is that you cannot do that. It is up to the voters to choose. Putting the power in the hands of the voters seems a jolly good idea. With that, I look forward to trying to change the Minister’s mind and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Local authorities to be allowed to meet virtually(1) A reference in any enactment to a meeting of a local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons all of whom, or any of whom, are present in the same place and any reference to a “place” where a meeting is held, or to be held, includes reference to more than one place including electronic, digital or virtual locations such as internet locations, web addresses or conference call telephone numbers.(2) For the purposes of any such enactment, a member of a local authority (a “member in remote attendance”) attends the meeting at any time if all of the conditions in subsection (3) are satisfied.(3) Those conditions are that the member in remote attendance is able at that time—(a) to hear, and where practicable see, and be heard and, where practicable, seen by the other members in attendance,(b) to hear, and where practicable see, and be heard and, where practicable, seen by any members of the public entitled to attend the meeting in order to exercise a right to speak at the meeting, and(c) to be heard and, where practicable, seen by any other members of the public attending the meeting.(4) In this section any reference to a member, or a member of the public, attending a meeting includes that person attending by remote access.(5) The provision made in this section applies notwithstanding any prohibition or other restriction contained in the standing orders or any other rules of the authority governing the meeting and any such prohibition or restriction has no effect.(6) A local authority may make other standing orders and any other rules of the authority governing the meeting about remote attendance at meetings of that authority, which may include provision for—(a) voting,(b) member and public access to documents, and(c) remote access of public and press to a local authority meeting to enable them to attend or participate in that meeting by electronic means, including by telephone conference, video conference, live webcasts, and live interactive streaming.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would enable local authorities to meet virtually. It is based on regulation 5 of the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, made under section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I would like to start by paying tribute to the late Baroness Masham, recognising what a great champion she has been for North Yorkshire, and saying how much missed she will be.
In moving my Amendment 158 I will speak to Amendment 310 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and to Amendment 312D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. On Amendment 158, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for lending their support.
The genesis of this amendment is to try and establish what the current status of virtual meetings is. I believe there is a certain lack of clarity and I personally do not understand whether it is possible for local councils to meet virtually since we have moved away from the arrangements in place during the height of the Covid virus.
I would like to make a plea to my noble friend the Minister. I do not know whether it is my noble friend Lord Howe, who is most welcome to his place this evening. I make a plea to him to consider the case, particularly given the inclement weather we have enjoyed—perhaps suffered—in the last fortnight in North Yorkshire, that it should not be obligatory to insist that a local councillor perform their democratic duty of turning up to attend all council meetings of every committee, not just a planning committee, although I have drafted the amendment against that background. It would apply to full council meetings and all committee meetings. In the event of an injury and someone being incapacitated—for example, if they cannot drive to attend a meeting—if it was a hybrid situation or if the weather was so bad that the meeting would not be quorate, the amendment would enable the meeting to take place in certain circumstances.
We know that local authorities met virtually to great effect under the regulations passed in 2020. I would like to remind my noble friend and the department that that worked to great effect. Is that still the position? Have those regulations now been lifted? Is it for the Government to come forward with new regulations— that is the purpose of my Amendment 158—to allow councils to meet in plenary, either as a full council or in committee, or can they currently agree to meet in remote circumstances?
If it is not permitted at the moment, I urge my noble friend to look extremely favourably on this amendment and make the case that, in certain circumstances— I would argue particularly in deeply rural areas such as North Yorkshire, which suffers occasional adverse weather conditions—it should be open to all councils at every level, if they wish to, to meet remotely to exercise their democratic duty and to represent their residents.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I shall presume to follow my noble friend and speak to Amendment 310 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I support my noble friend’s amendment, which is very helpful in setting out in full the potential structure of a power to enable local authorities to hold meetings remotely. Of course it does not require them to do so—it simply permits them to do so.
The story of this, essentially, is that during the pandemic the Coronavirus Act 2020 permitted local authorities to hold meetings remotely, and many did. That expired on 7 May 2021, and the Local Government Association and others sought a declaratory judgment from the High Court as to whether they could continue to meet remotely, in the absence of specific legislative provision. The High Court said that they could not—that it was clear that meetings required persons to be in the place required under the 1972 Act. Since 7 May 2021, they cannot proceed with remote meetings, which is a serious impediment, not least since the LGA’s chair at the time said that:
“The pandemic proved that using virtual meeting options can help councils work more effectively and efficiently and can in fact increase engagement from both councillors and residents”.
The first is fairly obvious; the second is particularly helpful. A survey conducted by the LGA back in November 2021 demonstrated that costs were lower for virtual meetings but also, and more significantly, public attendance could be higher at virtual meetings. It is very important to give local authorities those options.
The point that I come to is that the Government at the time, back in 2021, issued a call for evidence on remote meetings. We are now the best part of two years on and they have not proceeded on the basis of that call for evidence. I would hope or expect that the call for evidence demonstrated that this is an opportunity to assist local authorities to structure their meetings in a way that can maximise engagement and participation, and I am at a loss to know why they have not proceeded. At the time, of course, they said that there was a lack of a suitable legislative opportunity—well, here we are, and here it is. The Government have not put it in the Bill, but we have the option to do so. I may press my noble friend the Minister a little more than my noble friend Lady McIntosh might do: the time has come for the Government to get off the fence on this one. On Report, the best possible solution would be for them to bring forward their own amendment for this purpose.
There is a difference between the two amendments. Mine relates only to planning meetings and its structure is to create a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State. I suspect that, for that reason, it is preferable to the Government since, in Amendment 158, we have a regulation under the Coronavirus Act 2020 that is being turned into primary legislation. That is not always the most helpful way to structure things. I think the right way forward would be for the Government to introduce their own amendment on Report.
I was interested in this from the point of view of planning meetings, as part of the general process of trying to encourage efficient and effective decision-making in planning. I understand that there is an argument for this to be applied more generally, although it was obvious, from some of the references to evidence given before the High Court, that there is some hesitation on the part of experts about holding, for example, councils’ full or annual meetings virtually. The problem is the lack of personal interaction between councillors at such meetings and the difficulty of managing business under those circumstances. It is fair to say that simply giving local authorities this power would be a straight- forward way to do it, but I completely understand if some restrictions, particularly on full or annual council meetings, limited the exercise of that power. Either way, I hope that my noble friend indicates, whether definitely or otherwise, that the Government will think urgently about whether to bring forward measures to give local government this power in the Bill, through amendment on Report.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendments 158 and 310. Obviously Amendment 310 is more limited so I see it as a fallback, but I honestly cannot see any reason for the Government not to accept Amendment 158.
Covid obviously provided us with a lot of challenges, one of which was how to keep things going and how society and, for example, your Lordships’ House could still function. At the time, I thought that your Lordships’ House managed better than the other place. We were quicker to put in remote systems for voting and participating, which I thought was a huge advance in the methods that we used for debates and to create legislation.
I actually did not know that councils cannot meet virtually any more and think it is a terrible shame. I have been a councillor and it is really hard work. Going to council meetings on a cold wet night in November, December, January or February can be an extra challenge. Quite honestly, why on earth would we not do this? Virtual council meetings—and virtual meetings of your Lordships’ House—worked extremely well. We all found that we could work the mute button, although some have gone backwards on that. We still allow noble Lords to engage virtually, so it is logical for councillors.
Work has changed because of Covid. More people are working remotely and not going into the office as much. One of my daughters, although she has a full-time job, goes into the office only two days a week now. My partner goes into his office one day a month and my other daughter goes into her office once every two months. Even so, they all work extremely well and efficiently. I do not understand this regressive move.
There have been other regressive moves here. I loathe how we still start in the afternoons, even though we started earlier during Covid. It is easy to slip back into bad, old habits instead of taking new ideas forward and engaging in the best way possible. I hope that the Government see sense on this and, as is suggested, bring their own amendment forward. We would all support it.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the National Association of Local Councils. I added my name to this because NALC is very firmly of the view that there were huge benefits, which I will talk about in a moment, to virtual meetings during the pandemic. Councils were very sorry to lose them when the regulations expired in May 2021. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned, there is evidence of more participation by council members in virtual meetings but, for me and members of NALC, the really telling thing was the increased participation of members of the public. At the end of the day, that must be the most important thing; there was more engagement and transparency because people could more easily engage.
There were other benefits as well. One that I feel particularly strongly about—I have heard some powerful testimony from parish and town council members on this—was to those who have now had to give up because they cannot find childcare or because their partners need care and they simply cannot get out. It cannot be right that this whole group of people are being excluded from an activity that they love to do and at which they are probably very good. Virtual meetings could really help them.
I will make two other brief points. First, when I was a county councillor, I tried to get around my parishes but I had 12 of them—I had colleagues who had 23 or 26. It is not just county councillors; there are the district councils and people from the police and from health. They want to get around and meet town and parish councils, but it is very difficult. Virtual meetings provide a great way for people like that to engage with their local councils. It really makes it more straightforward.
Secondly, I return to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about this call for evidence. It took place between March and June 2021, when the regulations expired. In February, Lawyers in Local Government and the Association of Democratic Services Officers submitted a freedom of information request to ask exactly what had happened to the consultation responses. I will read the reply:
“We believe that releasing this information at this stage serves no particular public interest and is outweighed by the level of burden imposed on the Department in processing your request. The Government does intend to respond to the call for evidence, and when we do, that response will include a summary of the responses received. We are therefore not obliged to consider your request any further.”
Can the noble Baroness say—oh, it is the noble Earl; bad luck—why, after two years, this has still not been done? Does the Minister believe that this is a fair way to treat the 4,370 people and organisations that submitted evidence in good faith only to find that it has in effect been shelved?
Given that legislation is required to make this change—what lunacy that we live in a country where you need legislation to allow councils to choose how they should meet—this Bill would have been perfect for it, yet the consultation responses are still gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. Can the Minister say when he believes these will be dealt with? Can we have this in time for Report, given that we will have Easter in the middle, and some movement on it when we come to Report?
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 158. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils; I am also the co-president of the West Sussex Association of Local Councils.
I remember clearly that we had a difficult meeting of the county association, in that the matters were contentious. It was dealt with online. I and my co-president went through the whole thing; all I can say is that it was entirely satisfactory. It was well organised from the word go and was well marshalled by the clerk of the association. The matter was carried off to everybody’s reasonable satisfaction; given that there were contentious matters, nobody complained.
I would just like to say that the world has changed. The world was changing beforehand; I was doing virtual meetings long before Covid came along. The fact that the technology was there and was sped up says a great deal about those who were responsible for getting things organised, particularly those in this House who organised things so that we could hold our proceedings virtually. It was enormously to the credit of those who seized the opportunity to do it.
However, if we are going to speed up Britain, one of the first things we will want to do is make sure that we make cost-efficient use of people’s time. The first bit of cost-efficiency is reducing road miles; we can start by decarbonising meetings. I am not very far from my local authority offices but I know that, by the time I have travelled five miles, found a parking space, probably paid for parking, crossed the road and gone into the council chamber—I am not a serving councillor; I just use that as an example—it will have taken me a good half an hour, with another half an hour on the way back, thank you very much. If you want busy people to devote their time and energy, you really have to make efficient use of their time; otherwise, they disconnect.
The other important thing here is inclusivity; other noble Lords and noble Baronesses have mentioned this. We are dealing with people who may be infirm or have mobility difficulties. This may involve young people in households with schedules that do not match; they may work away so it is hard for them to get back in time with normal commuting. Of course, you also have parents who are looking after young people and cannot get away. They cannot detach themselves from their household, never mind the infirm or those with other issues.
On the grounds of cost-efficiency and inclusivity, these amendments are very powerful. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for introducing this group and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for taking us through the history of where this issue was. I say again: things have moved on. We need to look at a modern, efficient way of working. This amendment does not say that you would have to have virtual meetings; it gives local choice on the matter. How come a parliamentary Select Committee can operate virtually if it decides that that is convenient, as I think is still the case, but a parish council—or a planning committee, for that matter—somehow cannot? This is inconsistent and makes no sense, so I very much support these amendments. I hope that the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will consider them carefully and reflect on them; I know that he is an enormously fair-minded man when it comes to these things.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
This issue is part of a threesome that we have debated this evening: local democracy; fiscal and electoral decisions; and, now, how we hold meetings. How is it that Westminster can dictate how local councils should conduct themselves? That is the question I want to ask. I know that they deal with potholes; actually, I have a plan for potholes. Can we have migration of potholes? Do noble Lords think that would help? It seems to me that these amendments have a lot of merit; I will say why.
The first issue is travel. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised this but only in relation to going a short distance. In their wisdom, the Government have created two new unitary authorities, which start their life in April. North Yorkshire is one. If you live in Selby or are elected to represent Selby, in one part of North Yorkshire, you now have to travel 56 miles to get to a council meeting in Northallerton. That is a 112-mile round trip to get to a meeting. You have to ask yourself: is that an efficient use of anybody’s time, and does it contribute to our net-zero ambitions?
Then there is Somerset, which Members of the Committee may believe is a smaller county, but if you live at one end, in Frome, and the county hall is in Taunton, at the other end of the county, that too is 56 miles and a 112-mile round trip. That is not cost effective or efficient in anybody’s life. If you live in Yorkshire, especially North Yorkshire, and you have to go across the dales or the moors in winter to attend a meeting, you know that sometimes it is simply not possible. That is one reason.
I hope the Government will take up the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, of bringing forward a government amendment, either shortly or at the next stage, to deal with this. As the noble Lord said, it is about efficiency. Virtual meetings lower costs and enable more people to get involved. If we are interested in local democracy, as I am, the more people who can get involved and engaged in decision-making, the better.
My final point, well made by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, is about the engagement and involvement of people who are otherwise excluded from being councillors because of either caring responsibilities or lack of transport. If you do not have a car in North Yorkshire, I do not know how you get to Northallerton. Maybe the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, can tell us, but I think it might take a couple of days.
For all those reasons, it is really important that if we want to reinvigorate our local democracy—which is essential if we are to narrow inequalities, which is at the heart of the levelling-up process—we need more people to be engaged. If we want more people to be engaged and involved, we have to enable it by letting councils decide for themselves whether they want virtual meetings. I fully support the principle behind all these amendments.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a really important debate. This is such an important issue, yet it could be so simply resolved. We have heard about the Government’s call for evidence, but so far we have not heard anything from them, so it will be extremely interesting to hear the Minister’s response to that, particularly following the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the freedom of information request, which were a bit disappointing to hear.
The Local Government Association was, unsurprisingly, one of the organisations that made a fairly detailed submission to the Government. It noted an enormous number of benefits gained by local councils from being able to meet virtually. It said strongly that it hoped this ability would be retained, particularly when it is locally appropriate. We have heard a lot about how appropriate it is in Yorkshire, and it is the same with me in Cumbria.
We need to remember, as has been said, the huge benefits to the democratic process that were brought by enabling councils to meet virtually. It reduced reliance on delegating decisions to officers if there was a crisis, for example, because everyone could get together very quickly. There was much more flexibility, better councillor attendance and better engagement with local residents at council meetings. We have also heard of the difficulties that disabled people often have, or those of people in rural areas who do not have a car. This managed to completely change their ability to attend meetings and take part in local democracy. As was said earlier, if we can have people attending this House virtually, why on earth can we not have the same for people at local government level?
It is also really important that the Government are not so ridiculously prescriptive about how and when councils can meet. I genuinely do not understand why there has not been any movement following the call for evidence. I can see no reason why this is not a good thing to continue with. The LGA added in its response that councils would need considerable flexibility for local determination as to how and when to utilise virtual and hybrid meetings to ensure that they realise the benefits of all the different meeting options that suit the local context. Again, that flexibility is hugely important for democracy. As I said, I find it completely baffling that this was not just automatically extended once the benefits could be seen.
We know that councils provide many different services to their communities. Their decisions obviously affect the lives of residents, so to have a system where you actively enable high levels of civic representation and where citizens’ voices are heard and taken into account in policy-making, local decision-making and planning—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, particularly referred to—is surely of benefit to the whole of our society. We need to address issues of underrepresentation, which we talked about during the passage of the Elections Bill. Encouraging participation in local democracy at every single level is more likely to encourage people to take part in elections when they come forward.
We have an amendment on this, because we think it is important. We strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as hers is a really important amendment; I hope the Government will eventually come behind her. We support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but if you allow virtual meetings only for planning meetings, I am not sure how much that helps parish councils, for example. I will wind up, because I know we want to break.
In our parish, virtual meetings and being able to meet remotely were an absolute godsend. I know that when we were told that was no longer possible, the parish council was not just deeply disappointed but pretty cross about it. It had enabled far more people to attend meetings, not just the councillors but the general public. Like Yorkshire, Cumbria is a very rural area. We have heard about the local authorities referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady McIntosh, but even just our parish covers a pretty wide area. For people to find out what was going on in their parish was of huge benefit. People logged into the meetings who had never attended before. Again, it is such a shame to have lost that.
Along with other noble Lords who have spoken, I am honestly of the opinion that this is such a no-brainer for this Bill. I really hope that, following this debate and taking away the thoughts that have come from it, the Government will consider coming back with a similar amendment on Report so that we can just get on with this.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I remind the Committee that the Coronavirus Act 2020 contained numerous measures which were intentionally —and, in the Government’s view, rightly—time-limited as they were introduced in an emergency at great speed. The local authority remote meetings regulations arising from that Act gave local authorities the flexibility to meet remotely or in hybrid form. Since their expiry, all councils have reverted to in-person meetings and local government is back to how it operated pre-Covid and working effectively.
All three amendments in this group propose in different ways a relaxation of the rules relating to meetings held by local councils. Amendment 158, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, leans directly into the regulations that expired on 7 May 2021, using powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020. In a related vein, Amendment 310, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, aims to allow planning committee meetings of local authorities to take place virtually, as well as making related provisions for public access to meetings and remote access to meeting documents. Amendment 312D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is a probing amendment on a similar theme.
I have noted the powerful contributions made in this debate but I fear that I must give my noble friends and the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Hayman, a disappointing answer at this stage. The Government are of the view that physical attendance is important for delivering good governance and democratic accountability. As we in this House may recognise, there are clear benefits to democratic representatives debating and voting on matters in person rather than at the end of a video call. The nature of debate is different, and the nature of interaction is different, in a positive sense. There are benefits to the—
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
These amendments do not preclude that, but give an option. Does the noble Earl not think that having that option would be a benefit?
Earl Howe (Con)
I completely appreciate that, but I ask the noble Baroness to hear me out. There are benefits, which we would all recognise, to the side-discussions that are facilitated by being physically next to colleagues, and these are not the only considerations. It is worth my reminding the Committee that there is no restriction on in-person council meetings being filmed or webcast to allow the public to view proceedings remotely. Indeed, the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 extended full rights for the press and public to record and broadcast council meetings.
I have listened carefully to my noble friends and to noble Lords opposite, who have argued, often from first-hand perspectives, for the current legislation to be changed. I am afraid that the most that I can do at this stage is to say that we will keep the matter under review, and I undertake that we will do so.
My noble friend Lord Lansley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked me about the current position on the call for evidence and the government response. Conversations are continuing across government and as soon as possible after those conversations are concluded, we will publish a government response to the call for evidence, which will set out our intentions. However, for the time being, I must resist all three of these amendments.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Can the Minister explain why your Lordships’ House allows virtual contributions but does not give councils the opportunity to do the same thing?
Earl Howe (Con)
That is one of the considerations we are looking at. The noble Baroness is quite right—she knows that there are certain of our number whom the House in its wisdom has decided should be allowed to contribute virtually. These things should be considered in the mix, but I am afraid I cannot give the Committee a definitive answer for the reasons I have explained.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to what has been an excellent debate; there was unanimity across the Committee. If the Government are not prepared to table an amendment encapsulating the points that were raised, it may be helpful to point out that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said, this is not an obligation on councils. We are simply extending the choice they enjoyed under the very strict Covid regulations to permit democracy to continue and allow councils to meet. A number of examples have been given. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to caring responsibilities being added to the others. Councils at every level—and I think it important to include them all: parish councils, right up to the highest level, where appropriate—should have the right to choose.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, Filey to Northallerton is 57 miles. There are trains that take two hours 13 minutes one way, but they do not run at the time the council starts or ends the meeting. We have had a discussion about the weather and other reasons, such as incapacity, why individual councillors may not be able to attend a particular meeting. I find the arguments for the amendment very compelling; there is no downside that we have heard about. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, we do not know whether there is a downside, but if there were I think the Government would have been prepared to publish the evidence, because that would have strengthened their argument.
There are very compelling reasons for doing this: representation of both councillors and the public went up. However, I do not think we should make it obligatory. This House is allowed to meet virtually if you are incapacitated, or in committee; that is the committee’s choice. I would like to extend that same choice to councils at every level. I therefore propose to table—with cross-party support, I hope—an appropriate amendment on Report, unless my noble friend and the Government can table an even better one. The time to act is now. We are losing good councillors and members of the public who may not be able to attend for those reasons. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Public Spending: Barnett Formula
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the relevance of the Barnett Formula in the distribution of public spending across the United Kingdom.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate the relevance of the Barnett formula in the allocation of public funding in the UK. I am grateful to those colleagues who have put their names down to speak, and I am looking forward immensely to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, make his maiden speech. In passing, I thank the Library for the excellence of its briefing.
The formula was introduced by the late Lord Barnett, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in 1978 to prevent annual funding arguments with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It was introduced in Scotland in 1978, into Northern Ireland in 1979, and into Wales in 1980. The formula was used for allocating public spending until 1999, when it became the mechanism for the allocation of block grant. The Barnett formula calculates the yearly change in the block grant to the devolved Administrations from the UK Government. It calculates not the size of the block grant but rather the annual change in per-person funding, and in that sense it is clearly related to population. The nations can decide how to reallocate spending to other services from that block grant, and of course the block grant applies only to devolved public services.
Lord Barnett and others believed that spending in each part of the UK would converge over time. This was because devolved nations had a higher base of public spending and, when a fixed cash sum increase per head was allocated annually across the UK, the percentage rise to the nations would be lower than in England. There would then be gradual convergence because standard cash increase per capita should lead to a lower percentage increase. However, since then, formula bypass has become a factor—that is, additional money for a range of purposes not directly connected with the Barnett formula. The formula calculation is based on the historical amount that is devolved, but population rather than need has been a key factor—and has proved too large a factor.
The Barnett formula is still with us 45 years later. It has not eroded historical differences in spending between the regions and nations, as was expected. I do not think that the word “formula” is justifiable today, when it was a short-term fix driven by short-term funding needs in the nations and can be bypassed in the way that it has been. As Lord Barnett said in 2014 in his last speech on the subject, the formula was drawn up on the back of an envelope, and was not based on need. He called it “a national embarrassment”. He believed in a UK-wide needs-based system for allocating public funding, and he regularly asked Governments to cease calling it the Barnett formula when it was not his formula. He was right to do so. It may be a simple and predictable process for the Treasury but, because it can be bypassed by extra funding streams, it is not as transparent as it should be.
In 2009, a Select Committee of this House agreed with Lord Barnett; it urged replacing the formula with a needs-based system. The Calman commission in 2009 urged an assessment of need as a factor in the formula and, since then, the Institute for Government and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have both urged reform of the Barnett formula. The Constitution Committee in this House has three times, in 2015, 2016 and 2022, said that the Barnett formula should be reformed to achieve a fairer allocation of funding among the four nations. The Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, in its interim report, said that a needs-based system could be agreed and phased in.
We have ended up with a block grant system to the nations which can be flexibly used, but centralised control of the regions in England by the UK Government out of London. In today’s Budget, there seems to be some scope for further decentralisation through a block grant system into some mayoral combined authorities in England. I welcome that, but it should be on the same terms as the nations have. As it is today, government spending is higher per head in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales than in England. That may be justified, particularly when sparsity of population is considered, but we need to know the evidence, and a needs analysis is the way to find out. Indeed, the more the Government decentralise into England, as today’s Budget will demonstrate, the more challenge there will be for the Government to show that the allocations into England are fair.
The current figures, published by the Government in December 2022—their figures covering 2021-22—show that the lowest per capita public spending in the nations and regions is the East Midlands at £10,528 per head. In Northern Ireland, that figure compares to £14,062 per capita. In Scotland, it is £13,881 per capita; in Wales, it is £13,401 per capita; and London has £13,719 per capita. I want to ask the Minister why the share of UK public spending in the East Midlands is so comparatively low. I do not expect her to answer now, but I would appreciate something in writing which explains why there is such a profound difference in public spending in regions such as the East Midlands, compared to some others at the top of the list. As I said earlier, there may be reasons which are easy to understand and justify, but I would like to see what they are. I think—but do not know—that Treasury officials must know the answer to that question. In the context of today’s Budget, we are going to have to be much more open about it. If the Minister is able to write something down and supply it to all those taking part in this debate, that is the way to take a first step in understanding how it is justifiable that a region like the East Midlands has such a low figure.
Can we create a needs-based analysis? I am sort of waiting for the Minister to tell us that it is a complex task to undertake a needs analysis. Should that be the answer, I want to say in advance that, of course, it is not a complex task at all, and the reason is that the Government are already doing it as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. In February 2022, the Government produced a document called Levelling Up the United Kingdom: Missions and Metrics Technical Annex, and, at the back of that, all the indices that the Government are working on to level up England—and many of those metrics relate to the United Kingdom—can be used to undertake a needs analysis across the United Kingdom. If any Members have not seen that set of metrics produced as part of the Bill, I strongly advise that it is worthwhile read.
I really hope that the Minister’s reply will show some flexibility. In the last couple of hours, we had a debate on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill about the need for constituent parts of England to have fiscal powers. It just will not do for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to have substantial fiscal powers and for the constituent parts of England not to have those. We must have that debate, but I sincerely hope that the Minister will take seriously the point that I am trying to make tonight and that, in the context of what Lord Barnett established back in the late 1970s, there will be some better understanding of the need to move on from what is now an out-of-date formula.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I chose to spend my evening talking about the Barnett formula in large part because of the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill. I watched him be an absolute supremo of London’s transport system, whether it was on the surface—he loves his buses—or underneath the ground on something called the Underground, and he ran that with brilliance over many years, serving different masters equally well.
I am also a huge fan of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, despite our being on opposing Benches, because we are both ex-Procter & Gamble people. We like to keep our comments brief and have some data, so I will leave all the data to him and give some emotion on the Barnett formula: it is a bit of a challenge. Some of the changes we have seen to the formula over 45 years have been changes in the way that taxes have been devolved, which has meant that there has been some compensation in the size of block grants, because there are greater tax-raising powers for the devolved Administrations, and also welfare was devolved so, again, we saw some increases. However, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, makes the point that the Government have essentially bypassed the formula and focused on population rather than need. The great clarion call from the noble Lord is to focus on fairness. I will make a case that the Government should focus not on a needs- based analysis but on an opportunity-based analysis.
One of the things I discovered being responsible for a small part of west London in an area of extreme deprivation is that the more an area presented itself as being needy, the more government would spend on the area and nothing would get better. White City had initiative after initiative, for instance, based on its need, because its index of multiple deprivation being in the top 5% in the country, with the White City estate being a particularly poor area, and nothing worked. However, when we focused, as the previous Labour Administration started to do, on opportunity, and brought the jobs, with the opening of such things as Westfield and by encouraging Imperial College to come and have its “lung to the west” in White City, when we focused on growth, the jobs arrived and people had the opportunity to get on in life.
I think the agenda around this needs to be not around how we cut the cake to be fair, but how we create greater opportunities. I disagree fundamentally with the thinking that local government should be just about resource equalisation, so we all have equal resources. I actually think we will get better civic leadership if we start life as a race. Yes, we should ensure that people start equally, so resource equalisation should be around making sure that the starting line is equal; that, I understand. But when it comes to civic leaders, if we want the Joe Chamberlains and the big civic titans who transformed Birmingham, if we want the leaders who will make the north-east as competitive as London, we need people who have the vision to do that. They need to do more than just worry about how needy the area is so that they can get more money from Whitehall.
Where I am sure I will get agreement from the Liberal Democrats, if not perhaps from the Opposition, is around the need, in this case, for some change in policy. At the moment, all the policy from successive Governments is around devolution, with a mindset that Whitehall is there to tell the rest of government, above the level of the United Kingdom, how to govern: they should act as an agency of Whitehall. I think that is entirely wrong. What we need to see, if we want grown-up civic leadership, is a decentralisation of government, a letting go from No. 10 and No. 11, and then we will unleash those areas.
I wrote about this when I was perhaps in my political prime, in 2010. This is a great book, I will give it to the first person who wants to read it, A Magna Carta for Localism written by myself, Steven Greenhalgh, now Lord Greenhalgh; Sir Edward Lister, now my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister; and Colin Barrow—I do not know what happened to him, perhaps he will arrive shortly. The argument is around localism: how do we ensure that we break down the command state, the inspection industry, the service silos and financial dependency, so that local areas, now that we have left the EU, can do this? How do we ensure that local areas have the power to raise the taxes that they spend locally? I am not expecting the Minister to give an answer to any of that, because it is a pipe dream, potentially, but it is the right way forward.
We need to change things. We need to think about opportunity. I have served at every level of government, in the town hall for 16 years, in City Hall for four years—alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who was my biggest fan, let me tell you—and in national government for two and a half years, on that Bench where my noble friend the Minister is sitting. I sat there for nearly two and a half years and I enjoyed every second of it. I have to say that what I discovered is that there are great opportunities, even today, in local government. If we create an environment where you have genuine civic leadership, where you are responsible for your destiny, where you can spend the money you raise and think about how to attract investment to your local area without the dead hand of Whitehall, I think we would get a far better leadership, whether it is from the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. That is what I believe needs to happen.
We need to ensure that the NHS focuses on health but that local authorities deliver care, which they do anyway. They know about that: they have contracted and commissioned care for at least 10, 15 or 20 years— I do not know how long, but the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will. We need to get the DWP focusing on benefits policy rather than unemployment, because the initiatives happen closer to home. Local government knows how to get people back on to pathways for work better than the dead hand of Whitehall. The police need to focus on cutting crime rather than on social care.
These are the things that need to happen to avoid multiple levels of bureaucracy, where we have a national strategy for violence against women and girls, a city or mayoral strategy that does the opposite of the national strategy, and a local strategy that does something different. We need a focus that avoids these overlapping bureaucracies and sets our town halls, our city halls in our great cities and local government absolutely free to drive a pathway towards opportunity and growth. Where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is that the start point needs to be equal, but then set them free. I believe that is the way forward. Then we will see a great era of municipal leadership.
With that call for financial independence, which I can see everyone agrees with wholeheartedly, I hope my noble friend Lady Penn can pick something up from my thoughts.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, first, I am grateful to the Lord Speaker, the Clerk of the Parliaments, Black Rod, the doorkeepers and all the staff of the House for making me so welcome. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, has been particularly welcoming. I am so sorry to hear of his incapacity and I wish him a speedy recovery.
I also thank my noble kinsman Lord Hendy and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for supporting my introduction. I was not in the least surprised to see my elder brother elevated here, but never in my career in public transport, particularly when I conducted and later drove my number 11 bus around Parliament Square, would I have believed that I might one day be here too. I think we are one of only two pairs of siblings in your Lordships’ House.
I have managed bus operations in both the public and private sectors in London, elsewhere in England and in Hong Kong. I led a successful management-employee buyout when London Transport privatised the company I ran, and later returned to the public sector when the mayoralty and Transport for London were created in 2000. I managed London’s buses, major roads, Thames piers, and taxi and private hire licensing, including during and after the terrible terrorist bombings of July 2005. Then, in 2006, for nearly 10 years I became commissioner of transport, serving two mayors, Livingstone and Johnson, and I had the privilege of leading through the Olympic and Paralympic Games of 2012. For the avoidance of doubt, the credit for all the things that went well through all that time is to the staff, the management and contractors rather than simply to me.
In any event, I would never have equalled the achievements, nor the length of service, of my illustrious predecessor, the late Lord Ashfield, who ran London’s transport for nearly 30 years. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is a more recent and worthy successor in that role, but he had the misfortune to be at the inception of the ill-fated Tube public/private partnership. I do not blame him at all for the results of that, but I did take great pleasure in dismantling those flawed and expensive arrangements.
In July 2015, the then Secretary of State for Transport, now the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, abruptly summoned me to be appointed chair of Network Rail, then recently brought back into the public sector from the pretence of being outside it, despite government guaranteeing all its very substantial debts. I think I am grateful to him for that, although I still miss the comprehensive structure of TfL, its long-term planning horizon, its focus on passengers and its contribution to London’s economy.
I still chair Network Rail today and, subject always to the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport, I hope to continue for some while longer. I say that because our railway has great challenges to confront, and passengers, freight, the economy and the nation deserve better than we currently achieve. We have less demand and significantly less revenue than we did before Covid, and we must reduce costs.
The structures used to run the railway are not aligned to customers and are convoluted and excessively contractual. Cost is accounted for in a different place from revenue, track and train are divided, and innovation is supressed. Investment plans are seldom entirely fulfilled in practice, and, despite enthusiasm from all political parties for more investment, we do not have a prioritised, costed and long-term plan. Nor do we have as many private sector contributions to those investments as we should or, indeed, as we did at TfL.
This is all because the railway is not managed as a whole system. Passengers, freight, and regional and local stakeholders are all dissatisfied with a network which, when it goes wrong, can be the responsibility only of the Secretary of State for Transport. TfL was different: as the commissioner, quite properly, the failures were mine and the successes belonged to the mayor. I am able to say all that because the Government have the same view, as do, I think, many on all sides of this House. The reform of our railway is essential, because the connectivity it delivers is a major driver of economic growth, jobs, housing, social cohesion and sustainability, and with the right structure, we will do better. Thus, I am looking forward to primary legislation to create Great British Railways. In due course, with my brilliant chief executive at Network Rail, Andrew Haines, we hope to play the most active part we can in implementing the reforms proposed in the recent White Paper. They cannot come too quickly.
Your Lordships may also know that I am the author of a recent report on the connectivity of the United Kingdom, which has featured in recent Oral and Written Questions. I am looking forward to the Government’s response to my recommendations, which I know is in preparation. One of my conclusions in the Union Connectivity Review was that HS2 could make a better contribution than currently planned to transforming journeys to and from England and north Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is therefore strange that, as a consequence of spending on HS2, Scotland and Northern Ireland received additional funds as part of the block grant but Wales did not. That suggests that something is amiss with the way the Barnett formula is applied.
I also chair the London Legacy Development Corporation, which is building out the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in Stratford. It is the most successful Olympic and Paralympic regeneration anywhere in the world, and possible only because of better access by public transport. Connectivity, urban regeneration and economic growth are intimately connected.
Finally, I have an active interest in transport heritage. I own and drive vintage London buses, similar to the ones I drove and conducted over 40 years ago. I suspect that I am the only Member of this House holding a passenger carrying vehicle driving licence. I am a trustee of the Science Museum Group, where I chair the National Railway Museum’s advisory board, and I chair the Heritage Railway Association, all of which is particularly relevant to my aim to ensure a successful celebration in 2025 of the 200th anniversary of the first public passenger railway in the world, the Stockton and Darlington Railway. That started the railway revolution which drove transformational economic growth and urbanisation both here and around the world. That seems to be a British achievement worth celebrating nationwide.
I referred earlier to my illustrious predecessor, the late Lord Ashfield. His record at London Transport is never likely to be equalled, and certainly not by me. However, he made but one speech in this House in the 28 years he was a Member. Despite my present, virtually full-time role as the chair of Network Rail, I hope to do better than that, and I look forward to contributing to your Lordships’ debates in the future.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, your Lordships might normally expect me to speak in a debate on the Barnett formula, but when I realised that my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill was giving his maiden speech tonight, I immediately put my name down. It is a great privilege to follow my noble friend; I very much enjoyed listening to him speak, and I look forward to his contributions on many areas which I also care about.
It was wonderful to hear about my noble friend’s passion for public transport, which I also share. I am sorry to say that I have never had the chance to drive a London bus, but maybe this is my chance to put in a bid to do so. Due to my board membership of Transport for London, where my noble friend was the commissioner, I have worked on a gate line at London Bridge Tube station and made platform announcements—they let me do it only for a few hours, but I learned a lot along the way.
I would like to go back a little further to when I first met my noble friend. We were both at an event in the lead-up to the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Fairly quickly, we started talking about accessible transport. He asked me whether I had ever been on a bus. I replied that I had not as I did not think they were accessible. I knew that my noble friend was involved in transport, but I am not sure that at that point I realised he was the commissioner. Once I realised that he was in charge of transport in London, I was more than happy to be proved wrong about access and I have been a bus traveller ever since. His knowledge of bus routes and their numbers is second to none and is better than any website or app I have ever found.
I would also like to echo other noble Lords’ thoughts on the leadership he showed up to and beyond the 2012 Games. The fact the public transport system worked so well in 2012 was one of the things that significantly contributed to the success of the Games. I was also privileged to work with my noble friend at the London Legacy Development Corporation, which is incredible. It shows that Britain can win, design, build and do legacy really well on big projects—as long as it has the vision. He now has a role at Network Rail—I am sure that Network Rail hears from me slightly more than it would often want to. My noble friend’s support for disabled people travelling on public transport is very welcome.
When I first came to your Lordships’ Chamber, I was given some very welcome advice, which was to come into the Chamber and sit and listen. I remember an early debate that I came into; it is fair to say it was quite technical, about the Barnett formula. When I left the Chamber and went through Central Lobby, I met a member of the public who had come to listen. He stopped me and slightly harangued me about one particular Member who had such strong views on it. I am very happy to say that it was Lord Barnett himself, so he was quite within his rights to have strong views.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, gave a very eloquent speech. As someone who was born in Wales, works in Wales and lives in the north-east of England—actually, I live on the Stockton and Darlington line in a train station—I believe that maybe it is time that we think differently about what we do.
I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Hendy raised HS2. It would be remiss of me not to highlight my wish for greater accessibility on trains and other modes of public transport and perhaps some of the missed opportunities we might be seeing to make HS2 step free. I know that it is not necessarily part of this debate, but we need to think about what more we can do with HS2 in terms of opening it up. Modelling from WPI Economics shows that inclusive transport brings significant advantages. A fully accessible network could help some of the 51,000 individuals with work-limiting disabilities to find employment, even more so and more importantly with the Government’s proposal to change the work capability assessment process.
HS2 is not cheap but, through many conversations with my noble friend, he has convinced me that it is the right thing to do. Rethinking how it will work could have a positive, tangible effect on the Treasury’s finances. A step-free rail network could deliver £450 million into the coffers of the Exchequer and produce an economic output boost of around £1.3 billion—all a valuable contribution.
This might be the last time I take part in a debate on the Barnett formula. After listening to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, maybe in future we could be talking about a Greenhalgh formula.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, on his delightful maiden speech. I warmed very much when he mentioned the Barnett consequences of HS2—I will mention those in a moment. I am sure we all look forward to his future contributions to debates in this Chamber. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing this debate and giving us an opportunity from various angles to address aspects of the Barnett formula.
I am probably the only Member here who spoke in the Commons debate when the Barnett formula was introduced in 1978. I then warned that it would freeze the financial relationships between our four nations and ossify Wales into a dependency relationship in which the consequences of historic industrial and social patterns would place high demands on healthcare and housing budgets.
In opposition, Welsh Labour MPs called for a needs- based formula to replace Barnett, but when in government they failed to deliver. That was partly, I believe, because the Chancellor and then Prime Minister Gordon Brown was a Scottish MP and feared that a needs-based formula might penalise Scotland.
When the Barnett formula was introduced in 1978, Joel Barnett proposed it as a short-term measure. Four decades later, the then Lord Barnett described its continued application as an embarrassment. Its fundamental weakness for Wales is that it takes as its starting point the situation that existed in 1978. The Government have acknowledged that the baseline for Barnett is created by “rolling forward existing spending”. That assumes that the spending in 1978 was appropriate to Wales’s needs and that no fundamental change in the relationships between Wales and England has happened since. But there has been a dramatic differential change arising from the ending of the coal industry and hugely reduced employment in steel. The formula’s other central weakness is that adjustments to the base spending levels were not needs related. Subsequent editions relate to spending levels determined by Westminster as appropriate for England.
It is fair to say that over the period from 2000 until Brexit hit home, Wales benefited from European regional and social funds. We received that aid because the per capita GDP in 15 of Wales’s 22 counties was below 75% of the EU figure. Wales was accorded European funding in 1999 because of the failure of UK economic policy to regenerate the Welsh economy. EU aid was essentially a recognition of need.
The challenge was to raise the economic activity levels, which ran at six percentage points lower than England. There is some irony that the issue of lowered economic activity levels is now being experienced in England as well. I question whether successive Labour-led Governments in Cardiff used those European resources in a strategic manner to put right the underlying weaknesses of our economy. Money was given out to support worthy projects that were welcomed in local communities but often did not address the underlying problem. EU funding was intended to address these needs-based issues. The Barnett formula does not even try to do so.
The Barnett formula was reviewed by a House of Lords Select Committee in 2009 and by the Holtham commission in 2010. Both criticised the formula, principally because it is not needs related. To highlight one aspect of its deficiency, over recent years public expenditure per capita in Wales has been very close to that of London, notwithstanding the greater needs of Wales on a host of indicators. Analysis from 2022 showed that total identifiable public expenditure per capita in 2020-21 was £14,222 in Wales and £15,490 in London. If per capita expenditure had been the same in Wales as in London, Wales would have received an extra £4 billion.
I accept that only half of government expenditure in Wales comes through the Barnett formula and the rest is direct Treasury funding for non-devolved matters. But over the Covid period, London benefited disproportionately from central government spending, despite the costs of Covid being felt all around these islands and the health services being largely devolved.
Another glaring example relates to HS2, as we have heard. Normally, if such a project cost, say, £100 billion in England, the Barnett consequential for Wales would be about £5 billion. Instead, Wales receives nothing because HS2 is defined as an England and Wales project, despite not a single mile of it running through Wales. Will the Minister tell the House who made that decision? Not one mile of HS2 is in Wales; indeed, a KPMG study for HS2 Ltd shows that Wales would lose competitive advantage as a result of it. That report projects Scotland as gaining competitive advantage, yet Scotland gets a Barnett consequential from HS2 and Wales does not. In responding to this debate, the Minister should announce that Wales will get a full Barnett consequential from HS2, as demanded by the Conservative leader in the Senedd. If she fails to indicate government rethinking on this issue, many Tory MPs in Wales will pay the price.
In their response to the Select Committee report, Cm 7772, the Government promised to keep the operation of the Barnett formula under review. In responding to this debate, will the Minister tell the House exactly when it was last reviewed, what material evidence arose from any such review and when it was published?
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, at Question Time on 18 January, acknowledged that the Barnett formula was not serving Wales well and called for it to be scrapped and replaced by a needs-based formula. The Minister has repeatedly said, in this Chamber on 18 January and again this afternoon, that the Government have responded to the demands of the Holtham commission that Welsh funding should be decided on a needs basis. I say here, as emphatically as I can, that they have not.
The Holtham report contained three core demands. The first was to establish a Barnett floor to stop the ongoing systematic convergence of the Welsh allocation per capita with that of England. It would, in Holtham’s words, prevent even further underfunding of public services in Wales.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am winding up now. As I was saying, it does not do anything to put right the level of underfunding that Wales has systematically suffered and that is built into the present settlement. That is why Holtham recommended, crucially, that Barnett be replaced by a “needs-based” methodology to get financial provision in line with Wales’s needs. Please will the Minister confirm that case?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to take part in this debate. I too live on the Darlington-Stockton railway line in Darlington. We are very proud of our railway heritage, and we are looking forward to the centenary in 2025, when we will celebrate our fine contribution to the railway infrastructure of the world, all starting in Darlington.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on securing this debate, which is timely, given today’s Budget Statement and in the light of other developments, such as the UK internal market Act and the creation of a new UK subsidy control scheme, as well as the distribution and spending of levelling-up funds. We are all very interested in those issues, today especially.
As the helpful Lords Library briefing outlines, the Barnett formula is a long-running Treasury policy. It does not have a statutory underpinning, but it is very well established. I was struck by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, saying that he spoke in the debate in 1978 in which it was introduced. I doubt whether the Minister was born in 1978, which goes to highlight just how long this has been going on.
As someone who lives in the north-east and is married to a Welsh MP, I am very familiar with the sense of grievance that exists around the current situation. We know that various complaints are levelled against the Barnett formula, and the Government should engage positively with those debates and attempt to move this forward. Of course, the formula is not the only way in which the Government claim to be closing disparities between the nations and regions of the UK. The levelling-up fund is, contrary to initial expectations, allocated by Westminster rather than being devolved. That has raised questions, particularly from the Welsh Government, and I hope that the Minister can address those concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, spoke about setting regions and councils free. Obviously, everyone would like to see that, but I gently point out that it is quite difficult to be free when you are tied up in spending thousands of pounds, if not more, which you would like to spend on services, bidding for various funds to help you grow and regenerate your area as you would like to do.
Concerns have been raised about the use of the levelling-up fund, and there have been plenty of accusations of funds being given to certain local authorities for perhaps more political purposes rather than on the basis of need. We on these Benches are deeply concerned about that and support the prioritisation of need in allocation of funds. In recent weeks there have also been reports of significant sums being allocated but not actually being spent, which suggests that the system is not functioning as well as intended and that some funds might have been better spent in other parts of the UK.
Alongside Barnett and levelling-up funding, there is also of course the question of the UK shared prosperity fund, which is coming on stream to replace EU regional development funds—I think the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to this as well. The UK shared prosperity fund has identified geographical areas in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the formula used is different to Barnett and the precise forms of support for each part of the UK seem to differ, as does the nature of the interaction between Whitehall and the devolved Administrations.
I also recognise and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, on his maiden speech. As someone with great experience at the top of FirstGroup, Transport for London and Network Rail, he has a solid track record of overseeing public spending on infrastructure projects, and we all look forward to benefiting for years to come from that insight and experience, and we welcome him here. I especially congratulate him on including Darlington in his maiden speech and encourage him to continue to do so throughout his many years and contributions in this place.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for the timeliness of this debate and add words of welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. As we have heard, he brings a plethora of experience to this House, not least through his efforts to increase union connectivity, which, as the noble Lord noted, the Government are considering carefully. I look forward to working with him in the future.
As was reflected in my right honourable friend the Chancellor’s Budget today, the Government are committed to delivering growth and prosperity across all four nations of our United Kingdom and all regions within it. The Budget will rightly be debated in its own right by this House tomorrow, but I want to highlight that it is a Budget that delivers for the union, both through UK government support for all parts of the UK and through providing further additional funding to the devolved Administrations. The Spring Budget ensures that the benefits of economic growth are felt everywhere; promotes the conditions for enterprise to succeed; encourages the inactive back into employment; and continues to provide support with the cost of living to people across the United Kingdom.
As we heard earlier today, the spending review 2021 set the largest annual block grants, in real terms, of any spending review settlement since the devolution Acts. On top of this, the devolved Administrations received £3.4 billion of extra funding at the Autumn Statement and, as a result of decisions at the Spring Budget, are now receiving an extra £630 million in additional funding over the next two years through the Barnett formula, which we are here to discuss today.
The Government’s commitment to investing in our union should be in no doubt. However, it is helpful on Budget Day to reflect on the fiscal settlement that we have across all four nations and on how decisions such as those taken today flow through to the finances of the devolved Governments, including through the use of the Barnett formula.
As many noble Lords noted, the Barnett formula is long-standing, having been introduced in 1978—which is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, noted, before my time. It is transparent and open to scrutiny. It is consistent with the principles set out in the Statement of Funding Policy document, playing a key role in pooling and sharing resources so all parts of the United Kingdom receive a secure and stable level of funding for public services.
As noble Lords noted, the formula determines changes to devolved Administration funding in relation to changes in UK government funding and works by multiplying the change in UK government funding by two figures: a population share and a comparability factor, which measures the extent to which a UK government service is devolved.
The formula serves to ensure that any changes to funding are, per person, broadly the same across the United Kingdom. These changes are then added to devolved Administrations’ existing funding, which is much higher per person than equivalent UK Government spending, broadly reflecting that needs are higher in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The outcome is that the devolved Administrations receive more than 20% more per person than equivalent spending in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I understand that there are, on many occasions, calls to replace the Barnett formula. To answer those calls honestly, it is important to acknowledge that the formula is not perfect, but all allocation systems have strengths and weaknesses, and we do not need to replace the Barnett formula to make meaningful improvements in the way in which devolved Administrations are funded. Indeed, that picture has not remained static since the formula was introduced in the 1970s: significant changes have been made since then.
The devolved Administrations have agreed tax powers so they can increase their funding. They have control of local taxation, such as business rates and council tax. They also have agreed borrowing powers, as well as flexibility to move funding between years. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the question of needs-based funding—not just looking across the nations of the United Kingdom but across our regions as well and how funding is allocated within England. I am sure the noble Lord will know that many different formulas contribute to the distribution of funding within England. Many of them take needs factors into account. To answer him, as he gave me the option to do this, I think it would be best if I wrote out to those who have attended the debate today on the approach to needs-based funding in England.
As for needs-based funding and the Barnett formula, I recognise that it is not directly needs based in Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, the higher levels of funding they get reflect the greater needs in those areas. In Wales, raised specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, although we did not take forward all the recommendations of the Holtham commission, very importantly, we have introduced a needs-based floor into the Barnett formula to ensure that that is taken into account.
The latest fiscal framework agreed between the UK and the Welsh Government in 2016 added a needs-based factor into the Barnett formula to ensure that Wales receives fair funding. The Welsh Government receive at least 15% more funding per person than the equivalent United Kingdom spending in the rest of the UK, as recommended by the commission. A review of that fiscal framework is triggered when the Welsh Government premium falls below 15%. It is not below 15% at the moment; noble Lords will know that is it at 20%. This is about £1 billion more each year than the Holtham commission indicated, and the Welsh Government agreed, was fair to Wales.
There may be a question of how effectively the Welsh Government have spent their needs-based funding, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised that question about EU funding that the Welsh Government have received. The United Kingdom Government share the desire to ensure that money is spent effectively across all parts of the UK and that devolved Governments are held to account by their electorate for how effectively they spend their money. When it comes to introducing a needs-based element into the Barnett formula, the reforms we have undertaken since the Holtham commission’s report show that you do not need to abolish the Barnett formula to improve on its work.
My noble friend Lord Greenhalgh provided a different perspective on whether we should look at needs-based funding or opportunity-based funding. He raised an interesting point and I hope he has taken heart from some of the announcements in today’s Budget. Whether it is devolution or decentralisation, there were important announcements in today’s Budget that will give more power to those who are close to their communities and have a better idea of how money should be spent in those areas.
We have agreed, subject to ratification, trail-blazer devolution deals with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and West Midlands Combined Authority. They will equip those authorities with deeper, additional policy levers to deliver on their priorities, including across local transport, skills, housing, innovation, net zero and employment. They are a big step towards what my noble friend spoke so passionately about: empowering the leaders of local areas and others to take forward the policies that will deliver for those local areas.
The Budget also provided hundreds of millions of pounds more for levelling up, including over £400 million of funding for the rollout of new levelling-up partnerships, bringing the collective power of government to provide bespoke place-based regeneration in 20 of England’s areas most in need of levelling up over 2023-24; and over £200 million for 16 local regeneration projects in places in need across England—from a skills and education campus in Blackburn, to the transformation of Ashington town centre. There have been significant moves in this Budget both to devolve power to local areas and to ensure that areas that need support from levelling-up funds get it.
It would be remiss of me to conclude this debate without addressing the point on High Speed 2. I do not think that what I will say to noble Lords is new information, but the reason why Wales does not receive a Barnett consequential on High Speed 2 spending, unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, is that rail infrastructure in Wales is a reserved matter. It is based on the devolution settlement we have and the difference in the settlements between Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is consistent with the funding arrangements for all other policy areas that are reserved in Wales but devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, such as policing.
This has been an interesting debate. As we move to further devolution, it is interesting to think about what basis that, and the funding, should be on. I am sorry that I could not more fully answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about funding in England. I hope to write to him with a very full response after this debate.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Can the Minister clarify that her letter will explain—in great detail, I hope—why, for example, the East Midlands has a lower per capita public funding settlement than the rest of the United Kingdom? We need such examples to dig out the reasons for the differences in per capita public funding by nation and region. I hope, secondly, that the letter will also confirm my view that the levelling-up metrics which are part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill could be used as a basis for a needs analysis to allocate public spending in a new system that does not depend on the outdated Barnett formula.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will endeavour to provide as much detail as I can in my written response. I note the noble Lord’s desire that it address the specific points concerning the East Midlands.
When it comes to the levelling-up metrics, we will of course look at the idea put forward by the noble Lord. As someone experienced in looking at reforming funding formulas across a whole range of different public service areas, I can say that this can be extremely complicated. I know the noble Lord said that that was almost no excuse, but it is important to recognise that fact. Any such changes need to be carefully taken forward and thought through, but we will look carefully at his proposition.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Wednesday 15th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-V(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (15 Mar 2023)
“Councillor conduct: suspension of a parish councillor(1) The monitoring officer of a local authority in England may suspend a parish councillor where that monitoring officer has determined through an investigation that the parish councillor has breached the parish council’s code of conduct.(2) In subsection (1) a “local authority” is defined as being a—(a) district council;(b) unitary council;(c) London borough council;(d) metropolitan borough council.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would introduce a new sanction of suspension to the ethical standards regime which applies to parish councils in England.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I have six amendments in the group that we have reached and they are each different in nature. While I will be as economical with my words as possible, I need to make a brief case for each of them. Collectively, they are to do with strengthening the position of town and parish councils which, we have all agreed, play an important part in our local government system. I again put on the record my interest as president of the National Association of Local Councils.
First, Amendment 159 deals with councillor conduct and the suspension of a councillor. At this level, it is true that most parish councils are very well run. The clerks, council staff and councillors all work together very well and maintain high standards of conduct. But, sometimes, the impact of poor and disruptive behaviour by councillors, clerks and, occasionally, residents can overshadow proceedings and communities and make civic life very difficult indeed. We are concerned here with a small minority of councillors who engage in unacceptable behaviour such as harassment and bullying, including racist, sexist and ableist abuse. Such activities would be grounds for suspension and dismissal if they were in an employment setting, which is why NALC is arguing for stronger sanctions than the current ones.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life published a review in 2019 which made a number of recommendations to strengthen the current standards and conduct frame- work and the safeguards that apply to it. It argued that the sanctions currently available to local authorities are insufficient and that this lack of robust sanctions damages public confidence in the standards system and leaves local authorities with no means of enforcing lower-level sanctions or addressing serious or repeated misconduct.
Amendment 160 is on the position of those with caring responsibilities. Again, we can agree that it is essential that councils of all levels contain representatives from a wide range of circumstances and backgrounds. Underrepresentation of certain groups is very bad for democracy. NALC has carried out research that identified that an important barrier to achieving this wider representation is lack of help with the costs of dependant care. Unlike every other councillor in England and Wales, members of a parish council are specifically precluded from being able to access help with dependant care. I hope that, if the Government are setting their face against virtual meetings, they will consider the impact on this group and perhaps agree to changing the allowances situation.
Amendment 161 is around the governance review, which was a commitment in the White Paper to launch a review of neighbourhood governance in England to look at how it could be made easier for local people and community groups to come together to set local priorities and shape the future of their neighbourhoods. The review would also look at the role and functions of parish councils and, crucially, at how to make parish councils quicker and easier to establish.
Communities covering two-thirds of England’s population are being left behind in taking this community- led action because they do not have a parish council. Onward’s social fabric index shows that areas with full coverage of local councils score significantly higher than those without local councils in all the key measures of community strength. We heard earlier this evening about the considerable success of neighbourhood plans in delivering more houses rather than fewer. Partly as a result of that, in the past decade more than 300 places have created new councils in response to community demand, yet barriers still exist, which are partly lack of awareness by communities that they could have a local council, lack of support, a process which is very complicated and the attitude of some principal councils, which can be quite resistant. The Government are yet to publish any further details or timescales for taking the White Paper forward. It is a real pity that this Bill is again missing that opportunity.
Amendment 162 relates to the power to pay grants. Neither the levelling-up White Paper nor the Bill includes any reference to funding for the 10,000 parish councils in England. These councils do not currently receive government funding. Their services and activities are almost entirely funded by their small share of council tax. They do not receive revenue support grant or a share of the business rate and, despite the growing role of parish councillors in responding to the social, economic and environmental needs of their communities, they are not eligible in their own right for any of the government growth funds, such as community renewal, levelling-up, the towns fund or the UK shared prosperity fund. They are also excluded from the community ownership fund.
I agree with my colleagues, and I share the distaste for this handing out of money through central pots but, if that is the way it is going to be done, then it seems very unfair and counterproductive to exclude parish councils. They are not going to be able to play the full role they can in levelling up if they are simply funded by local residents. There are other opportunities coming up in which parish and town councils would like to participate, for example, a net-zero trail-blazer or—heaven forefend—any more national emergencies or the delivery of government priorities. This amendment would level up the list of local authorities in England to which Ministers of the Crown could pay a grant. It would provide Ministers with an additional power and flexibility and not be a requirement.
My penultimate amendment, Amendment 163, is around clarification of the legal power of parish councils to fund repairs to local churches. I will not dwell too long on this because there is Amendment 485 later in the Bill, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and others. The fundamental problem is that parishes which wish to fund local churches now find themselves with a grey area of the law. Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1894 says that parish councils cannot give funding to ecclesiastical charities, but Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 says that they can. This amendment is not saying that they should be giving grants—it is neutral on that—it is simply that parishes which might want to give a grant are deterred because the law is unclear. I should make it clear that it is not always a church building. In my parish, for example, we have no community room. The only building we have is the church room, and that is really our community centre, but the parish council does not feel it can give a grant. The advice that NALC gives to its members is that the accepted legal principle is that, when interpreting an Act of Parliament, a specific provision overrides a general one. I have a lot of detail about the legal provisions—which noble Lords will be pleased to hear I will not go into—but they certainly need to be clarified. That was held out in 2017 by The Taylor Review: Sustainability of English Churches and Cathedrals, which confirmed this confusion needs to be cleared up.
The Minister wrote to us a few weeks ago on this matter, and her letter essentially said that this would need to be taken up with the courts. I respectfully suggest that if Parliament has legislated in ways that are contradictory, it really should be for Parliament to sort it out, not the courts. In practical terms, it is absurd to think that parish councils will voluntarily take themselves to court. This is an appeal for clarity.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I will speak specifically to Amendment 163.
I should first declare an interest that I am the high steward of Ripon Cathedral, and although Ripon is technically a city because of its cathedral, the cathedral is also regarded by many as its parish church. The crypt is the oldest built fabric of any English cathedral, and worship there has been continuous since 672. Ripon was the first place in England where the Benedictine rule was lived out. It is a grade 1 listed building. The surrounding lands are a scheduled ancient monument. However, although it is a place to encourage pilgrimage and sanctuary, it is also a space to encourage imagination, exploration and debate. It is used extensively to promote local innovation and many events, and is a space for the community of Ripon to come together. However, it needs urgent support if it is to flourish for the next 1,350 years or so.
All churches and cathedrals have a really desperate job not just trying to stay open but, in these straitened times, to be heated. They try to raise whatever money they can but tend to be fighting a losing battle, as the maintenance costs of caring for such large buildings is astronomic.
It is a complete anomaly that parish councils cannot help to support their local church or religious building if they so wish. Almost certainly it will not be a huge grant: parish councils are as bereft of money as our churches are. As we have already heard from my noble friend, the two conflicting bits of legislation pertaining here—Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1894 and Section 137(3) of the Local Government Act 1972—give rise to concerns that parishes can, if they want, grant the local church some much-needed money. What should have happened of course is that, when Section 137(3) came in, the Government of the day could have struck down Section 8, which, as we have heard, says that funds cannot be given to churches, whereas Section 137(3) says that they can. Unfortunately, this was probably overlooked at the time and now we have an opportunity for the Government to accept this wholly reasonable amendment, which will clarify matters.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, my name is added to some of the amendments in this group, and I would like to speak very briefly to some of them. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for having introduced her amendment so eloquently.
I recognise several of these from the time when I had the privilege of being the president of the National Association of Local Councils, and of the then combined Sussex Association of Local Councils. I know just how disruptive these conflicts can be. They can be between the chairman and councillors, between other councillors, or councillors and a clerk, or it can be something that a councillor is doing externally to the work of the parish. These things do need to be dealt with, and if the monitoring officer is not in a position to call order, these things have a habit of festering. I know just how disruptive they can be to the entire process, so I support that one very much.
I support also Amendment 160 on the dependants’ carer’s allowance, and in particular the review of neighbourhood governance. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to neighbourhoods and neighbourhood planning, and I think it is a matter of vital consequence, particularly as there seems to be a certain frequency of neighbourhood plans not being respected by the principal authorities. If we do not have something that neighbourhoods feel they can really aspire to and can be made to stick, what is the motivation for them to get engaged in the first place? Are we delivering something that is really talking about communities and supporting communities in what they do and their aspirations, or is it some sort of fig leaf? I hope it is not, and I think there should be this review so that we can see where things are going. I certainly agree with the power to pay grants to parish councils. This is something that goes back a long way—several years.
I did not put my name down to one other amendment that I should have—that was Amendment 164—because the general power of competence for parish councils certainly goes back into the mists of time and was a live issue during my period as president of NALC. Again, this goes back to the question of whether parish councils can demonstrate to their councillors, for all the time and effort that they give voluntarily, and the fact that they are spending public money, that they are going to be able to drive forward their proposals within their area of competence. This is not to say they should be in conflict in any way with principal authorities, or anything like that, but, within their remit, why can they not have the general power of competence? I can see no good reason not to have it. For those reasons, I support these amendments. The only one I have not mentioned is Amendment 163, on:
“Financial assistance to church or other religious bodies”,
because I really felt I did not have the competence to make any comment on that.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, could I make an appeal to the usual channels that, given that there is a major problem this evening in terms of transport, we are mindful of that in terms of how long we sit? Only in this House—certainly not in the House of Commons—could we be here with the difficulties that are experienced outside and, while I realise we have got to try and make progress on Committee, I appeal for the exercise of a degree of common sense.
In speaking to the amendments to which I have put my name, I want to make a broader point. When I was leader of the city of Sheffield, with its population of 560,000, I was not always mindful of the needs and the importance of the parish and town councils that lay to the north of the city and which had previously been in what was then the old West Riding—that is, Bradfield, Ecclesfield and the town council in Stocksbridge. It struck me much later, as a declared communitarian, that this was a big mistake. The more that we devolve and ensure that we make decisions and delegate decisions as close to people as possible, the more we will ensure that we protect and reinforce our democracy. Town and parish councils are the building blocks on which the broader decisions are taken by county and metropolitan authorities and, here in London, by the boroughs, the GLA and the mayor.
As we move to greater devolution, which was debated in the previous business this evening, we must take into account that, while elected mayors and mayoral combined authorities are the way forward in terms of infrastructure, investment and devolvement of powers from central government, this will not succeed unless people feel an affinity and are engaged with their community and neighbourhood in the cities and, in rural areas—of which I have had experience in the last 20 years—with their parish and town council.
These amendments are not just technical amendments relating to the powers that should exist with parish and town councils. They are about the reinforcement of democratic representation by local people and the investment in community facilities, including religious facilities and institutions where it is possible to define sensibly what that investment is for. I imagine that the Government will want to reflect on this. It could be in heritage. It could be, as has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, the community facility that in so many parishes and small towns across the country exists only within the local church. I did apologise to the annual conference of parish and town clerks for having been a bit centralist in the past, so I might as well put that on record tonight. A sinner who comes to understand is worth three of those who have not understood the mistakes that they have made—so there we are.
There is a very real issue here that the Government could deal with very simply and easily and, as has been described, where there are contradictory pieces of legislation—Section 137 was mentioned—we could set the record straight. We have moved on a lot since the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission’s proposals and the 1972 and 2003 Acts. Life has moved on. There is a greater consensus now about devolution and about subsidiarity—I never could say that word without losing my teeth. We have an opportunity on the levelling-up Bill, very simply and easily and without a great deal of fuss, to put this right on Report.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will probably upset my noble friends Lady Scott and Lady Harris when I speak to Amendment 163. There may be confusion, but if any of the Acts should be withdrawn, it should be the 1972 Act, not the 1894 Act, for one reason of practicality and one of principle.
The matter of practicality is that the Church Commissioners, in their latest report, said that the reserves of the Church of England after its liabilities in pensions is £7.5 billion. Therefore, there are issues concerning investment in church funds or church buildings where the first port of call should be the reserves which the Church of England holds. The report goes on to say that in dioceses, the reserves are £1.6 billion, with a cash reserve of £1.84 million, and cathedrals’ general reserves are £524 million, with £50 million in cash.
The second reason is one of principle. I find it absolutely incredible and unacceptable that the Church of England—an organisation that does not see me as an equal citizen in this country, that has used discrimination and prejudice to try to deny my marriage and many other people’s marriages in this country and continues to do so, and that uses a fudge to try to hold its own organisation together rather than see equality for all in love—should be the first port of call as a matter of principle in which parish or any other councils should be able to claim off the state.
For those reasons—one of practicality, the funds that the Church holds, and one a matter of principle, which I see as a position of prejudice and discrimination held particularly by the Church of England—I feel that if any legislation should be repealed, it should be the clause in the 1972 Act and not the 1894 Act.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I am certainly ready to respond on behalf of my Front-Bench colleague on this group, but I notice that there are two further items that it might be appropriate for me to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to address before I speak.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have one amendment and a stand part notice in this group. One is on whether Clause 92 should stand part of the Bill, and the other is an amendment as to whether the Crown should publish a review on whether the provisions of the Act should be extended.
Clause 92 is on the neighbourhood development plans and orders, and the basic conditions that are referred to. We have put this down because we wanted to draw attention to what we considered to be a fundamental issue with neighbourhood plans. As things stand at the moment, it is not entirely clear to us what role they play in national planning policy. We know that they are explicitly addressed in the National Planning Policy Framework, but this is only in terms of process. The way it is done is not particularly clear. On the one hand, the stated rationale of neighbourhood plans is that they give communities the power to develop a shared vision for their area, and they are legally part of development plans. On the other hand, they have to conform to local planning housing allocations, if they are still going to exist, and have regard to national planning policy, but can also be overturned when they are in conflict with either of these things. That brings about a tension and, ultimately, the question of who makes decisions here. Is it communities or is it Ministers? This is not really resolved or clear at all. It would be helpful for the Minister to bring some clarity around that. We need clarity about the precise remit of neighbourhood plans.
More fundamentally, we also need a better sense of the function of neighbourhood planning within the wider planning system. It is critical that there is a balance between local and national planning, because we do not want to see communities disempowered and more control at the centre. I know that the Government have talked a lot about how the Bill is devolving power from the centre locally, but we feel that in many areas this is not actually what the Bill is achieving. We need to make sure that we do not lose the ability of communities to have a say in their own destinies and what their communities are going to look like. If you think about the last 10 years of Conservative Administrations, the Government have been tinkering away with the planning systems; we believe that has, to a certain extent, undermined the scope for effective local and neighbourhood planning. The Bill is an opportunity to put that right. As it stands at the moment, we think that in certain areas it does the opposite. It is about making sure that the Bill does level up, does give more power to communities and does not snatch any more back to the centre.
I give just one example of why we are particularly worried about this. The new national development management policies that the Bill provides for will take precedence over both local and neighbourhood plans where there is any kind of conflict. When the Minister responds, it would be good to hear that she appreciates the concerns I have just expressed and for her to give us confidence that the Bill will not undermine any kind of localism in the planning system. On the clauses that we are concerned about, such as Clause 92 and later when we get to the NDMPs, it would be good to hear that there will be more consideration of the impact on local decision-making.
Amendment 506 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage concerns
“whether the provisions of this act should be extended in relation to parish councils and town councils in England, and community councils in Wales and Scotland.”
We have had a pretty big debate about parish and town councils so I will not go into any detail on them now; I think the Minister has a fairly clear idea of why we are saying this. I do not think the Bill goes far enough to empower and involve communities in the devolution proposals that we have been debating.
I will speak briefly on some of the other amendments introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. Again, many of them are really important. I particularly want to say how much we support Amendment 160—as the noble Baroness said, this feeds back to our previous debate—on the dependant carers’ allowance for parish councillors. This is important. I do not understand why parish councils could not have been added to the list of local authorities in England that can have a scheme to provide for the payment to members if they have caring responsibilities. It could help with the expense of arranging childcare, for example, or of having someone come in to sit with an elderly relative while the carer attends a meeting. It seems a sensible, practical way of supporting councillors who have caring duties to take a greater role and encouraging people with caring responsibilities to take part in their local communities.
I also think that the noble Baroness’s Amendment 161, on neighbourhood governance, is something that we need to look at. It makes absolute sense for the Secretary of State to have to
“undertake a review of neighbourhood governance in England.”
Again, in looking at levelling up, that is about empowering communities; it is all part of the same picture, as far as I can see. The noble Baroness referred to the 2017 Taylor review. As she said, it confirmed that there is considerable confusion about what Section 8 of the 1894 Act actually means; again, we will come on to churches and what it means for them. Whether you agree with it or not, this is about updating legislation so that everybody better understands what it means. At the moment, better clarification is needed. One of the points that has been made on this by the National Association of Local Councils is that there is no current case law to resolve the question of whether that Act in fact overrides these provisions. To me, it just makes sense to have a review as it is a very old piece of legislation.
We very much support the noble Baroness’s Amendment 164 on the general power of competence. Communities need power and influence to tackle the issues that matter most to local people, allowing them to shape the delivery of public services in their area and, ultimately, to deliver the kind of community in which they want to live and be part of. Again, we think that it is an important amendment.
My noble friend Lord Blunkett said, quite rightly, that this group of amendments is important for how local democracy is supported and developed as we go forward. I hope that the Minister and the Government will look kindly on the amendments, the spirit of what they are trying to achieve and the support they are trying to give local communities and parish councils. If you are genuine about levelling up, these sorts of amendments can actually make quite a big difference in their own way. I hope that she will have time to take this back to her department to look at in more detail.
Finally, it was very good to learn that my noble friend Lord Blunkett has recognised the error of his ways in making things more centralised, and I hope that the Government will learn from his approach.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to the community of the saved. The amendments on parish councils find favour with our Front Bench. I will not go into great detail on them. I hope that, if we are quick on this group of amendments, the Government will give us a break afterwards.
On the standards proposed by Amendment 159, I say that I was a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when we carried out our inquiry on the state of the health of democracy in local councils. There was a quite clear gap, and our recommendations were very clear about what should be done. It is disappointing that the Government, initially at least, responded that they were not going to take any action. I hope that they will now take some action, not least because of the high-profile cases which came to light during the pandemic lockdown.
We support Amendments 160 and 161; the review of parishes is certainly well overdue. The capacity of parishes to do things was much tested during Covid. Most parishes proved up to the task, but the government system of emergency funding was denied to them; had it been available, it would have been helpful to their communities. I would have thought that the Government might want to have this reserve power in their pocket for a future occasion, even if they are convinced that they do not need to apply it immediately.
I did not know how controversial grants by parish councils would prove to be in the debate. I just add that the Church of England is not the only religious body in England, and certainly not the only religious body which supplies and helps its community and which parishes might well want to support and enable. I am quite sure that we need to get past this particular roadblock and just make parishes able to take their own decision about whether a particular body and a particular cause does or does not justify the use of taxpayers’ and parish money to carry out duties of one sort or another. The power of general competence is of course part of capacity raising, all of which is about levelling up by making parish councils effective voices in their community and enabling them to do things; it is empowerment.
The Government have focused on things which some of us think are completely misplaced or very trivial—the subject of street names springs to my mind. However, on things which are much more important and significant, they seem to have been a little blind, so I hope that they will respond to the debate in a very positive way.
On the question of Clause 92 standing part of the Bill, I hope that I do not understand the clause properly, because it seems to say that neighbourhood plans will be fine from now on, but only as long as they reach a minimum standard set by the Government in terms of housing supply.
I said in an earlier debate that neighbourhood plans had been remarkably successful in allocating more land for housing than the local plans that they superseded, on average. Obviously, of the roughly 3,000 that have been approved, not every one has provided more housing—some have provided less—but, on average, they have provided more. They are a vehicle for overcoming the terrible tension in a planning system in which the developer develops and the community opposes. They were designed to turn it around, so that the community proposes and the developer develops. That is how you get more homes; if you try to bulldoze it through the community, at whatever level, you will slow the process down. Neighbourhood planning has shown that you can speed it up and get more homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, before I respond to the amendments in this group, I want to say that the Government recognise that parish councils have an important role in improving the quality of life and well-being of their communities. They have a close understanding of what their communities want and can design and procure the services which best meet those needs. They are vital to levelling up. I just wanted to add that before turning to these amendments covering parishes and neighbourhoods.
On Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, the fact that there is no provision in current legislation for a sanction to suspend a councillor was a deliberate policy decision at the time of the Localism Act 2011 to differentiate it from the previous Standards Board regime. That regime was considered to have allowed politically motivated and vexatious complaints. The Government’s position on this remains substantially unchanged, as referenced in our response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s review of local government ethical standards.
This clause to suspend a parish councillor found to have breached their code of conduct would introduce inconsistency in the local authority standards regime across the other tiers of local government. On the rare occasions when councillors display poor behaviour, local authorities have options to issue sanctions on parish councillors. Councillors can be barred from committees or representative roles and may be publicly criticised.
I turn to Amendment 160, also tabled by the noble Baroness. This Government are keen to ensure that local communities are well represented in local authorities and that all levels of local government are supported to create thriving local democracies. While I thank her for raising this amendment, it would result in unknown but likely significant costs and pressures on the modest finances of many parish councils. For that reason, the Government resist the amendment.
Turning to Amendment 161, tabled by the noble Baroness, as set out in the levelling-up White Paper the Government are committed to undertaking the neighbourhood governance review as one of the six drivers of levelling up. The review will make it easier for local people and community groups to come together to set local priorities and shape the future of their neighbourhoods. The Government are taking the appropriate steps to deliver the review within the next financial year, 2023-24, and will ensure that a programme with a bold new approach to community empowerment is put in place. The success of this will require the collaboration of all partners in local government and civil society, as well as central government.
Turning to Amendment 162, tabled by the noble Baroness, the Government recognise the important role that town and parish councils play in their communities. Parish councils have the power to raise funds through precept, which they can ask their local billing authority to collect through the council tax system. There are around 10,000 parish councils in England, and I am sure noble Lords will agree that it would be disproportionately bureaucratic for central government to give funding to all of them directly. It is much better for them to raise that funding locally, according to the needs of their local communities. As for bids for certain grants, PCs can always work with other local authorities and their partners in an area for funds, including such funds as the LURB’s.
Amendment 163 is important to government. The intention of the Local Government Act 1894 was to provide a clear separation between parochial church councils and the newly created civil parishes. While it does not allow parish councils directly to contribute to the maintaining or improving of church buildings, other powers, as has been said, such as the Local Government Act 1972, allow parish councils to contribute to the upkeep of such buildings if it is deemed to be in their local communities’ interest. Section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 enables parish councils to provide assistance in respect of buildings used for public meetings or for recreational facilities.
We are aware that there are different interpretations of the laws surrounding this issue which have not been tested in the courts. As independent bodies, it is for parishes to decide what works best for them in their local communities and to ensure they act within the relevant legislation, taking legal advice where appropriate. If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I will not go further into this issue at this time because I look forward to debating it much more fully when the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol are before the Committee. For the time being, however, I note the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Turning to Amendment 164, tabled by the noble Baroness, the definition in the Localism Act 2011 of local authorities covers a parish council and enables such a council to do anything an individual might do, apart from that which is prohibited, obviously. The intention of the 2011 Act is to give local authorities confidence in their legal capacity to act for both their communities and in their own financial interests, in addition to providing them with more freedoms to innovate and work with others to run services and manage assets for the benefit of the local communities they serve. Parish councils vary in their ability and capacity to take on the enhanced roles and responsibilities of an authority with the general power of competence.
To make it clear to noble Lords, the general power of competence includes the council clerk having completed a course in local administration and two-thirds of the councillors having been elected. These are not easy things, they but are sensible when it comes to a general power of competence. The 2011 Act therefore makes extension of powers to parish councils conditional.
Regarding the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, about Clause 92, before a neighbourhood plan or development order can be put to a referendum, the local planning authority must be satisfied that it complies with certain legislative tests known as “basic conditions”. The purpose of Clause 92 is to update the existing list of basic conditions to ensure that neighbourhood development plans and orders complement the reforms to the wider development plans framework and meet future environmental assessment requirements.
More broadly, and to make the position clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and others, the Bill will strengthen neighbourhood planning. In future, decisions on planning applications will be able to depart from plans, including neighbourhood plans, only if there is a strong reason to do so. In addition to neighbourhood plans, as we have heard, communities will also be able to prepare neighbourhood priority statements, making it easier and quicker for them to determine the priorities and preferences for their local areas. These will feed into the local plan process and the local planning authority will also be required to consider them.
Clause 92(1) removes the historic inclusion of paragraph (e) under paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which stated that a neighbourhood development order must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the local authority’s development plan. It replaces paragraph (e) with paragraph (ea), which makes it clear that a neighbourhood development order cannot prevent housing development taking place in a location that has been proposed within the local authority’s development plan.
Clause 92(1) also introduces paragraph (fa) under paragraph (f) of paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act. This requires that neighbourhood development plans and orders comply with the environmental outcomes report framework that the Bill is introducing to replace the EU processes of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment.
In addition, Clause 92(2) introduces a new basic condition for neighbourhood plans, which sets out that they must not result in the development plan for the area proposing less housing development than would have occurred if the neighbourhood plan were not being made.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. It is certainly helpful as far as the first parts of Clause 92 are concerned, but new paragraph (ea) is precisely the point I was raising: it requires a neighbourhood plan not to reduce housing allocation compared to the local plan, which is the current context. Bearing in mind that quite a few neighbourhood plans are being made in areas that do not have local plans, that raises another question, which we will park for the moment. If you put that floor at the level at which neighbourhood plans have to perform—in other words, you want everything to be above average compared to what we have now—does the noble Baroness not see that it undermines the flexibility that is the strength of neighbourhood plans?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, I do not. One of the main issues that this or any Government will face is building houses, and allowing a neighbourhood plan to deliver fewer houses than a local plan is not acceptable.
On Amendment 506, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the Government recognise the important role that parish councils play in improving the quality of life and well-being of their communities, which are at the heart of the Government’s six drivers of levelling up. The Government believe that the current provisions are adequate in addressing issues faced by the sector. These provisions provide tools and flexibilities to allow town and parish councils in England to adapt to local needs and circumstances. In Scotland and Wales, the devolved Governments also already have the tools to conduct a review of the provisions in this Bill and to make changes in relation to community councils. Noble Lords will agree that it is important for local people and community groups to come together to set local priorities and directions. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate today, and I am particularly grateful to both Front Benches on this side for their support—and particular thanks go to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for having the courage to stand up and admit that he was wrong. For a brief moment, when the Minister started to say such warm and wonderful things about the town and parish council sector, my hopes started to rise—but they were sadly and very quickly dashed.
I am bitterly disappointed about the carer’s allowance. Having set their face against allowing virtual meetings, it feels particularly cruel for the Government not to allow town and parish councils to make a decision for themselves as to whether they would like to pay a dependant carer’s allowance. That feels to me quite petty and rather indicative of a mindset that says, “We want to try and devolve, but actually not really if you’re going to do something we don’t like”.
The governance review will be welcome if it takes place in the next year, but we have been waiting a long time for this. It was promised in the White Paper, and it is again disappointing that we will have to go through this process—and then, if there is legislation, they will have to find time for another Bill. It is such a pity that this opportunity was lost.
Finally, on being able to bid for grants, I gently remind the Minister that there are many large town councils that are significantly bigger than district councils, and they are getting grants while the towns are not. So the idea that there are too many of them and they are all too small really does not hold. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Given the lateness of the hour, with the usual channels we have decided that, because of the train strike, now would be a good time to break off from Committee.