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
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
We must stop the misuse of our asylum system so that we can focus our resources upon those who really need our help, not those who can afford to pay people smugglers to transport them from safe countries.
Marsha De Cordova
The Illegal Migration Bill is yet another example of the Tories scapegoating asylum seekers to distract from their incompetence. It will not be compatible with our legal obligations under the Equality and Human Rights Commission and it will leave asylum seekers, such as those from Iran, in limbo so that they will be deemed permanently inadmissible to our asylum system. We need more safe and legal routes now, not after the boat crossings have stopped, as we know that the Bill will never achieve that. Why will the Home Secretary not seek to provide safe and legal routes for everybody now?
Suella Braverman
We always place a high priority on the wellbeing of asylum seekers, which is why we are also committing to rolling out safe and legal routes as part of our plan.
While I have the attention of the hon. Lady, may I take this chance to invite her to apologise to the nation? She campaigned in 2020 to stop the Government from deporting a serious foreign criminal. Thanks to her efforts, together with those of 70 Labour MPs, the Government were subsequently stopped from removing Ernesto Elliott, who went on to murder in the UK. Mr Speaker, will—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Home Secretary should know better. This is sub judice.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
He has been convicted—it is not sub judice.
Mr Speaker
He has appealed his sentence, and I do not need any lectures from the Front Bench either. I look forward to an apology. Am I going to get an apology?
Mr Speaker
Thank you. Home Secretary, will you take the advice that I have been given? I know you do not like it, but I am only working on the facts of the case.
Suella Braverman
Well, I will still say that what Labour MPs have done is outrageous, and I encourage them to apologise.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Last week, the Italian Defence Minister made a direct link between the rise in asylum seekers coming to Europe by small boats and the activities of the Wagner Group in Africa. Given the atrocious activities of the Wagner Group in Ukraine and elsewhere, will the Home Secretary proscribe it?
Suella Braverman
We keep the list of proscribed organisations under review. We do not routinely comment on security and intelligence matters, but where a group meets a test of being a terrorism concern and where it meets our legal criteria, then a group can be proscribed, if it is necessary and proportionate to do so.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
What is more frightening than this toxic Bill that locks up the most vulnerable people who walk this planet, imprisons innocent children and pushes trafficked women back into the hands of their perpetrators, is that this Tory Government are peddling their divisive rhetoric because the Home Secretary has failed to govern or to provide communities with the support they need. Before she others the innocent, will she not admit that she is blaming the destitute to mask her own failures?
Suella Braverman
The only people who have failed here are Labour and Opposition Members who have failed to stand up for the British people and failed to support our measures to stop the boats. All they want is open borders and unlimited migration.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The Government have identified 57 countries deemed safe for the removal of asylum seekers, but there are no actual agreements in place to facilitate that legally. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on when those legal agreements will be in place? They will be good for the welfare of the asylum seekers and very good for the welfare of my constituents, because we can have our hotels back.
Suella Braverman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this is about enabling the Government to properly help the most genuine and vulnerable asylum seekers and refugees who come to this country. Currently, because of the influx of illegal migrants, and because our modern slavery and asylum system has been overwhelmed thanks to the efforts of the people smuggling gangs, we are unable to help those genuine victims to whom we owe a clear duty.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Government’s new asylum legislation is a sham that is set to worsen the backlog, because they do not have the facilities to detain tens of thousands of asylum seekers, or a returns agreement in place with the EU to send back those deemed inadmissible. For all her taxpayer funded photo ops this weekend, the Home Secretary has seemingly failed to bung the Rwandan Government enough money for them to increase the number of asylum seekers they are ready to take this year. For a deterrent to be effective, it has to be credible, yet these plans are just empty threats. Will she tell us where she expects to detain the tens of thousands of asylum seekers forecast to arrive this year, where she expects to remove them to, when Rwanda clearly has no intention of taking more than a very small proportion of those who she expects to arrive this year, and when this Government will get out of the way, so that Labour can deliver its five-point plan to stop the boat crossings?
Suella Braverman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his approach to entertaining the House today, but let us compare what the Labour party has done over the last 10 days with what the Government have done.
In the last 10 days, the Prime Minister and I have secured a big deal with the French to increase cross-channel co-operation. I have presented and we have voted on measures to detain and swiftly remove illegal migrants. This weekend, I met refugees who have successfully been resettled in Rwanda and saw the accommodation that people will be using.
What has the Labour party done? Well, the shadow Home Secretary has been on Twitter. She is very good on Twitter. She has tweeted, in the last 10 days, Labour’s paltry excuse for a plan. Half of it is stuff we are already doing; the other half is its plan for open borders and unlimited migration. What I suggest Labour Members do is get off Twitter and get to Rwanda, and I will show them how to stop the boats.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Freedom from Torture has talked about the impact on torture survivors of the anti-asylum Bill, calling it
“a betrayal of the commitments made following the Shaw Review”.
Seven babies born to mothers in Home Office accommodation since 2020 have died, so it is no surprise that Women for Refugee Women and the Royal College of Midwives have opposed the Home Office’s plans. Scotland’s Children and Young People’s Commissioner has warned that the plans to detain and remove children breach this Government’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child. There is nothing about protecting asylum seekers’ welfare that the Bill will fix, so does the Home Secretary accept the harm that she is causing?
Suella Braverman
We take very seriously our duties to everybody who is within our care. Our measures will always, of course, ensure that proper wellbeing and welfare provision is available to those who are vulnerable, but let me say this: the hon. Lady has absolutely no right to lecture this Government on how to support asylum seekers when her own nation royally fails to take any or sufficient numbers into Scotland.
Alison Thewliss
That is simply not correct. The Bill is not about helping asylum seekers; it is about banning asylum seekers. What does it say about the Home Secretary’s morals that she believes that Rwanda would be “a blessing” for asylum seekers, but when they come here she calls them a swarm and an invasion?
Suella Braverman
The problem that the hon. Lady is labouring under is that in opposing our plans, she sides with the people-smuggling gangs. She actively encourages, in effect, co-operation with the evil practice of exploitation of vulnerable people coming into this country. Vote for our measures, stop the people-smuggling gangs and stop the boats!
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
The Prime Minister made a commitment on 13 December to clear the legacy backlog of asylum applications over the course of this year. I am pleased to report that we are on track to deliver that. We have already doubled the number of caseworkers, and we are on course to double the number again. We are streamlining processes to reduce unnecessary paperwork while maintaining robust standards. The productivity of caseworkers has more than doubled since the start of the year.
Hannah Bardell
My constituents Mr and Mrs Leeson have UK residency but are American citizens. They live in my Livingston constituency and are highly skilled, but they have had huge issues with getting their niece Karissa, who they have guardianship over, a visa to come to Scotland. A US court has ruled that they are her guardians, but they are being told that they will have to wait six months for an administrative review. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the case? My constituent and her niece are currently stuck in the US, and the family are being separated.
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to look into the case that the hon. Lady raises. With respect to visas, I would just say that the UK visa service is now meeting or exceeding every one of its service standards, so the Government are providing a good service generally, but I would be happy to look into that case.
Dame Meg Hillier
The Minister says that the Government are providing a good service, but that is not my experience, either of asylum cases or across the piece. There are so many cases of work visas, visitor visas and so on being delayed for longer than I have seen in the 18 years I have served as an MP, which have included serving in the Minister’s role. When will he get a grip? It is all very well saying that he is dealing with asylum, but it is like whack-a-mole: he puts effort into one area, and another area goes badly wrong. When is he going to get a grip?
Robert Jenrick
I prefer to trade in facts, and the fact is that in every single one of the visa categories the UK visa service is at or exceeding the service standard. It is true that we moved a number of people away from work and visit visa duties to ensure that we met the demands of the Homes for Ukraine scheme last year, but those people are now back on the job and the service is performing well. If the hon. Lady wants to give specific examples, I shall be happy to look into them.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The backlog of asylum seekers is increasing the need for accommodation. We have just heard outrage expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress that the Scottish Government are making on housing numbers of asylum seekers similar to the numbers housed in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the outrage of the Scottish National party is entirely confected. There are almost no individuals in initial and contingency accommodation in Scotland; in fact, there are fewer hotels in Scotland than there are in Kensington. However, it is not just members of the SNP who should hang their heads in shame, but Labour in Wales, because in the whole of Wales there are only three hotels. There are more hotels in Earl’s Court than there are in Labour Wales.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, the sudden influx over, say, a bank holiday weekend of thousands of migrants who have crossed the channel in small boats causes substantial infrastructure problems in Kent. If we are to stop this dangerous trafficking of people across the channel, we must not only crack down on the gangs but demonstrate that it is a futile practice which will not lead to a shortcut into the asylum system in the UK.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has cut to the nub of the question. We cannot build ourselves out of this issue by creating more hotels or large sites. The only sustainable answer is to break the people smugglers’ model, and that is what the Illegal Migration Bill sets out to do. We on this side of the House are on the side of the British people, while those who vote against the Bill are on the side of the people smugglers. It is only by stopping people crossing the channel, by creating a genuine deterrent—for instance, sending people to a safe third country such as Rwanda—that we will achieve that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
We are committed to holding perpetrators of violence against women and girls to account, as has been demonstrated by the rape review, the tackling violence against women and girls strategy and the tackling domestic abuse plan, which includes violence against men and boys. To improve the police response, the Home Office is providing £6.65 million to develop the national operating model for rape investigations through Operation Soteria, and has funded domestic abuse training specifically for investigators.
Debbie Abrahams
Disabled women are twice as likely to be victims of domestic abuse as non-disabled women. I am currently dealing with the case of a woman who has ended up in hospital as a result of abuse from her partner. She has had no direct contact with the police, no personal statement has been taken, and she feels completely let down. I appreciate that thousands of women go through this, and I also appreciate that Greater Manchester police are doing the very best they can, but what is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that these women have the necessary confidence and trust to feel able to report such abuse to the police?
Miss Dines
The confidence of any victim of abuse must be increased, and to that end the Government are spending unprecedented amounts on training not only new but existing police officers in how to deal with victims. Disabled victims are no different from any other victim, and they are entitled to the same number and quality of responses. I should add that police guidance dictates that officers will visit the scene of every reported instance of domestic abuse, the only exception being when it is unsafe for them to do so. The hon. Lady is right to raise this important issue, which we take very seriously.
Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)
I welcome last week’s announcement by the Government which will lead to tougher sentences for domestic abusers who kill their partners or ex-partners. Can my hon. Friend confirm that this Government will always do everything possible to protect vulnerable women and girls and deliver justice to those who attack or threaten them?
Miss Dines
This Government are made up of the party that believes in law and order, and wherever we can, we will continue to review sentences. Strictly speaking, this is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but I know that the Deputy Prime Minister, and also the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, are thoroughly committed to reviewing this sort of offence.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
The fraud strategy will be published very shortly, and it will set out how the Government will work with industry to remove the vulnerabilities that fraudsters exploit.
Simon Fell
Over 70% of scams originate online, showing that tech and social media companies are not only significant to enabling fraud but key to preventing it. Given that tech and social media companies are currently driving the problem, will my right hon. Friend compel their sector to be part of the solution by going after frauds and fraudsters on their own platforms, as well as upping all our defences in the upcoming national fraud strategy?
Tom Tugendhat
I know that my hon. Friend is well versed in this subject. I read the article that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) recently wrote. It is a very good piece, which I recommend to the House. The article referred to the increase in scam adverts on social media, and I agree with him that social media companies must take greater responsibility for the safety of their users online by stopping more of these frauds at source. The Online Safety Bill is a welcome first step towards that goal, but it is right that we continue to consider what more can be done.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Fraud now accounts for nearly half of all crimes, yet very few of those crimes are investigated and only 0.1% of them go to court. While it is welcome that we will eventually get this fraud strategy, what more are the Government doing to ensure that the police have the resources and expertise to tackle crimes of fraud and that the criminal justice system speeds up so that many more such cases get not only investigated but heard in court?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member makes the case for me, and I am grateful to him for doing so. The reality is that we are seeing an explosion of fraud, not just in this country but around the world, and we have to deal with it. That is why bringing together the intelligence resources, the policing elements and the will is so important. I was in Manchester on Thursday where I met the chief constable and others who are doing so much to tackle fraud, not just connected to the garment industry where I was on Cheetham Hill, but linked to human trafficking and, sadly, to state threats and even terrorist financing.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
I refer the hon. Lady to the statement in my name that appears on the front of the Bill. I would add that I am satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are capable of being applied compatibly with the human rights convention and compliant with our international obligations, including the refugee convention.
Marion Fellows
Apparently the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees does not agree with the Home Secretary. They have said that this legislation amounts to an “asylum ban”, adding that it would be a
“clear breach of the Refugee Convention”.
Does the Home Secretary not realise that the very nature of human rights is that they are universal and that it is not for Governments to pick and choose which rights apply to which groups of people?
Suella Braverman
I refer the hon. Lady to article 31 of the refugee convention, which makes it clear that there is not an absolute duty on states to offer provision to asylum seekers, particularly if they have come from a safe country. It is important to note that the Bill applies to people who have come here illegally from a safe country. It is important that we instil a framework that enables us to detain and swiftly remove them so that we can stop the boats and stop the people smuggling gangs.
Ms Qaisar
When introducing the Bill, the Home Secretary said that she was
“confident that this Bill is compatible with international law.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 152.]
She then immediately confirmed that she could not make a declaration of compatibility under section 19 of the Human Rights Act. That followed her previous comments that she thought that it was less than 50% compatible. Can the Home Secretary please confirm to the House today which of these three views she holds?
Suella Braverman
I do not think the hon. Lady has quite got the point of the Human Rights Act. Section 19(1)(b) is designed for exactly these purposes. Although the Government believe our provisions are capable of being compliant with the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, we are, none the less, testing legal arguments and legal bases, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, a previous Labour Administration also introduced legislation carrying such a section 19(1)(b) statement.
The SNP is all talk and no action. Although Scotland makes up 8% of the UK population, only 1% of the UK’s asylum seekers are housed in contingency accommodation in Scotland. It is very easy for the SNP to make all the right noises, but it has taken zero action to stop the boats.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol are fundamental foundations of how humanity deals with refugees at times of crisis, but there are questions to be asked about whether the convention and the protocol remain robust enough, effective enough and sufficient to meet the challenges of refugees in the decades to come. Will my right hon. and learned Friend have the courage, as Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, to lead international discussions on this topic?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point, and I agree with his sentiment. The historic conventions to which we subscribe are fundamentally challenged by modern travel and a global migration crisis in which more than 100 million displaced people are on the move today. It is right that western and democratic nations, which take pride in our duty and track record of offering refuge to vulnerable people, start a conversation to ensure that we strike the right balance.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I am a strong supporter of the Illegal Migration Bill, on the grounds that it is the only practical solution to stop the wicked people-smuggling trade across the channel. Does the Home Secretary agree not only that those who compare this Government’s policies to those of 1930s Germany are appallingly ill-informed, but that it represents a grotesque slander against the victims and survivors of the holocaust?
Suella Braverman
Many people have commented on this. All I will say is that people who resort to such analogies have already lost the argument.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important topic. The Government are committed to reviewing the police funding formula, in which there are some unfairnesses. The police funding formula is historical and somewhat out of date, and we intend to consult on it in the near future.
Andrew Selous
Will the new funding formula be crime based, rather than just population based? Will it be implemented immediately for the winners, to stop the gross unfairness of the current formula to forces such as Bedfordshire?
Chris Philp
The intended consultation will cover topics such as the demand drivers of crime and how we should take account of the different costs of providing a police service in different parts of the country. In the meantime, Bedfordshire’s excellent police and crime commissioner, Festus Akinbusoye, is working incredibly hard to spend his budget effectively and to drive down crime in Bedfordshire.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that many police forces are struggling to obtain good forensic science facilities? Is he further aware that the Westminster commission on forensic science, with which I am involved, is deeply concerned about the instability of forensic science in our country?
Chris Philp
Forensic science is critically important, as the hon. Gentleman says. The Home Office is continually discussing forensic science provision with our colleagues in the policing family to make sure there is adequate provision. We are always looking at the funding arrangements and the range of providers, so I can assure him that this topic is the subject of continual scrutiny.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
We are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour and to recruiting 20,000 additional police officers, which will take us to our highest number ever. We expanded the safer streets fund to include the tackling of antisocial behaviour as one of its primary aims, and last year we published the ASB principles to establish a strong and effective partnership response to antisocial behaviour.
Dr Mullan
One challenge we have in Crewe and Nantwich on antisocial behaviour is groups of people at bus stops, on high streets and in other public spaces drinking alcohol all day long. That puts off families and elderly people, in particular, from making use of those public spaces. In theory, public spaces protection orders should work, but they can be burdensome to get into place. May we meet to discuss how we might make it easier for them to be enacted, in order to reduce that kind of behaviour in towns and cities?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right to focus on the blight that antisocial behaviour causes to communities. He mentions existing powers that the police have. We are keen to ensure that those are streamlined and improved so that they are more effective. I am pleased that his local force of Cheshire has more police officers on the beat—316 in the force. Following my visit, I was pleased to meet his outstanding local chief constable last month.
Jack Brereton
We have seen significant antisocial behaviour and crime issues in Longton town centre. With Staffordshire police and the city council, we have been working up plans to improve CCTV and to gate up a number of alleyways. However, we need additional funding to deliver that, so will my right hon. and learned Friend update us on when the next round of the safer streets fund will open for bids?
Suella Braverman
I am pleased that those in my hon. Friend’s constituency are starting to draw up plans for the next round of the safer streets fund. He will know what a difference safer streets has made to Stoke-on-Trent, with neighbourhood crime down by 26% since 2010. I cannot give him a precise date on the next round, but I can assure him that we hope to be able to say something more about safer streets in the near future.
Kate Osborne
Government austerity measures led to Northumbria police losing more than 1,100 police officers and to a huge increase in antisocial behaviour in my constituency, with thefts in local shops in East Boldon and Hebburn, and off-road motorbikes in Wardley and Boldon. The incident levels are so high that this week I am having a specific surgery with the police and crime commissioner in Wardley. When will Ministers allow recruitment to vacant policing posts, invest in our communities and tackle antisocial behaviour?
Suella Braverman
I am pleased that Northumbria’s police and crime commissioner has received just under £3.9 million from the Government through safer streets to date. That has included £3.5 million in the current round to fund projects such as community engagement, target hardening and guardianship interventions. Those are measures where Government funding targeted in local communities, in response to input from local leaders, is making a difference to safety in our communities.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I recently attended an open meeting in Oswestry in my constituency, where residents expressed concern about escalating antisocial behaviour in the town centre. The police and crime commissioner was there, but I am afraid to say that he was a little dismissive. Will the Home Secretary assure me that when the new police officers materialise, they will be properly allocated to market towns in rural places such as North Shropshire, so that the antisocial behaviour is dealt with effectively?
Suella Braverman
It is thanks to this Government’s commitment to increasing the number of police officers that we will have many more resources on the frontline in forces throughout the country to tackle antisocial behaviour. I only wish that the hon. Lady would get behind our plans.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I see from the weekend papers that the Conservatives are about to introduce an antisocial behaviour strategy. After 13 years of doing nothing, of dismissing antisocial behaviour as low level and unimportant, apparently the strategy will include Labour’s plan to tackle fly-tipping, Labour’s plan to tackle graffiti and Labour’s plan for community payback. May I ask the Home Secretary which other Labour policies she is going to adopt? Would she like me to arrange a full briefing from the Labour party?
Mr Speaker
This is going to get tedious in the run-up to the local elections.
Suella Braverman
It really is, isn’t it, Mr Speaker? May I point out that Labour-run Croydon Council has just cut the graffiti cleaning team? Will the hon. Lady just give us some advice on how that has worked?
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
Let me be clear: the UK Government are committed to tackling the heinous crime of modern slavery and to supporting victims. We continue to invest in the police to support them to improve the support they offer victims, and to drive up prosecutions. A total of £16.5 million has been provided by the Home Office since 2016, including £1.4 million last year for the modern slavery and organised crime unit.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
First, my thoughts and prayers are with my constituents the Gentle family, who lost their son Gordon during the Iraq war. We should remember all those military families who lost loved ones during that conflict.
Is the Salvation Army correct when it points out that detaining trafficking victims as they arrive and then removing them will simply deliver vulnerable people back into the hands of the criminal gangs that exploited them in the first place, and that that does nothing to break the cycle of exploitation but only further fuels the profits of these criminal gangs?
Robert Jenrick
No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Illegal Migration Bill makes it clear that we want to break the cycle of the human traffickers. We will do that by carefully considering cases and returning those people who can be returned to their home country, where it is safe to do so. In cases such as Albania, we have worked closely with the Government to put in place the procedures necessary to ensure that those people are carefully looked after and not at risk of re-trafficking. If that is not the case, they will be taken to a safe third country such as Rwanda where, once again, their needs will be looked after.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Just to correct the Minister, it was not the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) who made that criticism, but the Salvation Army, which the Home Office employs as its main contractor on trafficking.
I asked the Prime Minister this, and I got no answer, so I am trying again. When I worked on a Home Office contract, I met many women and children who had been brought here illegally to be repeatedly raped as sex slaves. The Prime Minister tweeted that such victims would be denied access to support from our modern slavery system—a tweet that will be an absolute delight to traffickers. How will we help to prevent a woman who is brought here illegally from being repeatedly raped if she is denied access to our modern slavery system?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady and I agree that we want to do everything we can to support the victims of human trafficking, but we disagree on how we do that. She is content for people to be brought across the channel in small boats at the behest of human traffickers. We want to break that cycle once and for all, and we believe that that is the fair and the moral thing to do. Today, a majority of the cases being considered for modern slavery are people who are coming into the country—for example, on small boats. We are seeing flagrant abuse, which is making it impossible for us to deal appropriately with the genuine victims, to the point that 71% of foreign national offenders in the detained estate, whom we are trying to remove from the country, are claiming to be modern slaves. That is wrong, and we are going to stop it.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
There is regular contact between Dungavel House immigration removal centre and relevant local stakeholders, as necessary, on issues relating to the day-to-day running of the centre. Although immigration is not a devolved matter, we will keep the Scottish Government informed should there be any significant changes.
Neale Hanvey
I share my constituents’ shock at the distasteful photoshoot of the Home Secretary outside the transportation camp in Rwanda. Will she set out the following in regards to Dungavel? How will this whole process work? How many refugees at Dungavel House are earmarked for transportation to Rwanda? How many are children or pregnant women? If the Home Secretary cannot give us those numbers now, I am happy to receive a letter later.
Robert Jenrick
Well, I share the disappointment at those who peddle misinformation of any kind. However, with respect to Dungavel House, it is an immigration removal centre and it is used routinely to detain, prior to removal, foreign national offenders and those who have entered our country illegally and whom we are seeking to remove. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagree on this issue. We on the Government side of the House want to remove foreign national offenders. We do not want them to remain in the UK. We also do not want to close detention centres. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) campaigned to be Leader of the Opposition on a pledge to close detention centres, but we want to get dangerous offenders such as murderers and rapists out of this country.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
As I outlined in my statement to the House on 20 February, we are taking increasing steps to address the threat from Iran—but, I should make clear, not to address the welcome we extend towards the Iranian people. Today of all days, we should say, “Nowruz etan Pyrouz.”
Alicia Kearns
There are three—if not seven—cut-outs of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps operating here in the UK, silencing critics of the ayatollah, inciting hate, celebrating terrorists and recruiting for a terrorist state. The Government know that this House wants the IRGC proscribed, but in the immediate term, will they please protect us from transnational repression by shutting down these cut-outs of the Iranian state? I also ask the Home Secretary or the Security Minister to meet Vahid Beheshti, who is on day 26 of a hunger strike outside the Foreign Office because he wants the IRGC proscribed. I am seriously concerned about his health, and it would help if the Government were to meet him.
Tom Tugendhat
I would be very happy to meet him and, indeed, anybody else who takes the threat of the IRGC in this country as seriously as we do. We have had this work ongoing for a number of months now, and my hon. Friend will be aware that asking for actions to be taken means we must be legally compliant with the responses. That is where we are getting to; we are increasingly at the point where we are taking more and more action against the IRGC. So may I say, in the words of Omar Khayyam, in his poem for new year:
“No words about last winter can bring cheer;
don’t speak of yesterday—rejoice today.”?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for that. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is involved in all sorts of unspeakable activities in Iran—abuse of people, persecution of Christians and other ethnic minorities, and attacks on women—but here in the United Kingdom it is also involved in subversive activities through the buildings it has. I think that everybody in this House wants to see it proscribed, so can the Minister give us some indication of when that will happen?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman knows very well, sadly, that we cannot discuss individual proscriptions, so I will not go down that route. However, he has been a voice for freedom of religion and belief in this country and around the world for many years. He will be aware of the brutality not only against women and the LGBT community in Iran, but against people of faith, Baha’i, Jews and Christians, who have seen their lives destroyed by an extraordinarily brutal regime. This Thursday is the beginning of Ramadan, and I am sure everybody in this House wishes every Muslim in our community Ramadan kareem and the blessings of the season. The reality is that this is a time for communities to come together, yet in Tehran it is time for the regime to ignore the Islamic faith and to tear people apart.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
Tackling knife crime is a priority. That is why, since 2019, we have not only spent £340 million on diverting young people into alternative activity via the violence reduction units, but had targeted Grip hotspot policing in areas where knife crime is particularly prevalent. That has led to a 19% reduction over the last three years in hospital admissions with a bladed weapon injury, and since 2010, according to the crime survey for England and Wales, violence is down by 38%.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Last year knife crime in Salford fell, thanks to the extensive work with young people by the Salford community safety partnership and Greater Manchester police operations to remove weapons from circulation. Sadly, since January this year there has been a spate of serious knife crime incidents that have destroyed lives and distressed the community. We need urgent Government support to implement a wider proactive reduction strategy. Will the Minister commit to ringfencing dedicated funding today for knife crime reduction initiatives and for lifesaving bleed kit roll-outs across Salford?
Chris Philp
That is a very fair question. We are already directing ringfenced money towards Greater Manchester and other areas via the Grip hotspot funding, which we are going to at least maintain and possibly increase next year, and the violence reduction units, which try to get young people on to a better path. I am visiting Greater Manchester a week today and look forward to discussing those initiatives and more with Chief Constable Stephen Watson, who I must say is doing a very good job, and others in Manchester.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Deterrence through tough sentencing must play an important part in dealing with the scourge of knife crime, such as that committed against my constituent Ellie Gould some years ago. I very much welcome Ms Wade’s report, which came out on Friday, about sentencing in murder cases involving knives, but I am disappointed that the Government have so far accepted only three of the 17 recommendations. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues at the Ministry of Justice to ensure that all 17 of the recommendations are implemented?
Chris Philp
I know that my hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on this topic over many years following the appalling murder of his constituent. Yes, I will raise the issues that he mentions with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, who I am sure will be extremely receptive.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
This week, the five young men who murdered a 17-year-old boy from Poplar using knives were pictured for the first time. Those young men were sentenced to a total of 93 years in prison. Although sentencing is a form of justice, the reality is that this Government have lost their grip on preventing such violent crimes. Time and again, they have failed to act until it is too late—sticking-plaster politics at the heart of power. When will the Secretary of State show some leadership and lay out a proper plan for crime prevention?
Chris Philp
As I set out to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), the Government have spent £340 million in the last three years directly to tackle knife crime, and, contrary to the hon. Lady’s question, that is yielding results. Hospital admissions for injuries caused by knives have dropped by 19% in the last four years, and violent offences, as measured by the crime survey—the only statistically approved measure of crime—have come down by 38% since the last Labour Government left office.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
Like the public, I want common-sense policing focused on keeping people safe and driving down crime. The disproportionate recording of non-crime hate incidents must not be used to inhibit free speech. We must be very careful about what is kept on an individual’s record. That balance has not always been struck, so I introduced a new code of practice on non-crime hate incidents and the recording and retention of personal data. It introduces new safeguards so that personal data may be included in an NCHI record only if the event is clearly motivated by an intentional hostility and where there is a real risk of significant harm to a group or an individual. Those changes are endorsed by outstanding police leaders such as Stephen Watson, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, and I hope that the whole House will get behind the draft code.
Anna Firth
Last summer, teenagers abused hundreds of canisters of nitrous oxide along Southend seafront. Today, firefighters have reported cutting people out of vehicles because of nitrous oxide abuse behind the wheel. Given the severe effects of such abuse, will my right hon. Friend consider taking tougher action to restrict the sale, possession and abuse of nitrous oxide in the UK?
Suella Braverman
I know that my hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate on this subject, as well as on the issue of dangerous weapons, and I pay tribute to her for her brilliant work. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 provides police with the powers to clamp down on the supply of nitrous oxide for non-legitimate use, but she is right, and I am clear, that the use and proliferation of nitrous oxide is unacceptable, and we will announce new measures soon.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
We welcome the Home Secretary back from her expensive interior design tour.
The Louise Casey review will be published tomorrow and is expected to be damning, with far-reaching findings. The Home Secretary has known about failures on standards and vetting in policing for a long time, so why has she repeatedly refused to bring in mandatory vetting standards and automatic suspension for officers under investigation for domestic abuse and sexual assault?
Suella Braverman
I regret the tone that the shadow Home Secretary adopts when it comes to Rwanda. I encourage her to ditch her outdated and ignorant views on our friends in Rwanda.
When it comes to the Casey report, which I have read, it is clear that there have been failings within the Met. That is why the commissioner is right to accept those past failings, and that is why he has my total backing in moving forward to turn around performance and standards in the Met, so that every citizen in London has total confidence in those who wear the badge.
Yvette Cooper
The problem is that the Home Secretary’s response is too little and too late. We should all back the commissioner to take urgently needed action in the Met, but confidence in the Met has dropped sharply and confidence has also dropped nationally. The system for national standards that the Home Secretary presides over is far too weak, with no proper regulations or requirements and no proper intervention when things go wrong. Neighbourhood policing, which sustains confidence, is being hollowed out. That is damaging for communities and for the vital work that the police do. Will she now commit to urgent legislation and a full overhaul on standards? The proud British tradition of policing by consent is in peril unless the Government act urgently.
Suella Braverman
I am proud of this Government’s track record on reducing crime and increasing the number of police officers. Since 2010, violent crime is down, robbery is down, neighbourhood crime is down and burglary is down. When the right hon. Lady talks about the Met, what I would gently say is that London has a Labour Mayor—as well as a Labour police and crime commissioner—who has failed to hold the Met to account properly. I am afraid I must encourage her to speak to her Labour colleague and ask him to do a better job of holding the Met to account.
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to both sides that topical questions are for Back Benchers. If people want to ask a longer question, they should be called earlier and not wait for topicals.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
Last week marked the first anniversary of the launch of the Homes for Ukraine scheme, which my hon. Friend took part in, and it is a powerful rejoinder to anyone who says that the UK is anything other than generous and compassionate to those in need. I have listened to his remarks, and I have had a conversation with His Excellency the Ukrainian ambassador in that regard. We have taken an important step in the past month by reopening our visa centre at our embassy in Kyiv, so that Ukrainian nationals can begin those processes in their home territory, rather than having to leave and go to Warsaw.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
The hon. Member will well know that the work we have been doing against the Iranian threat in the United Kingdom has not diminished—in fact, it has increased in recent months. He is right to talk about cultural centres. Sadly, the Islamic Centre of England is not alone. Indeed, the work of the IRGC is not limited to those Iranian proxy organisations. We have to ensure that we have the resources and the attitude, and that is exactly what this Government are pulling together and exactly what we are deploying against this vile threat that has taken over a country and is now threatening ours.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend knows my position on that issue. He also knows about the guidance we have issued on the policing of non-crime hate incidents. He will note from the announcement recently that we are encouraging the police to strike a better balance, so that freedom of speech is more protected in their efforts to keep the public safe. The College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council will be working on new guidance to reflect the new offences in the Public Order Bill, but I reassure him that we are doing everything to ensure that the sensitive balance is struck, so that freedom of speech is protected while safeguarding the public.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady makes a powerful case for deterrence, which is exactly what the Illegal Migration Bill does. It will deter people from crossing the channel and break the model of the people smugglers.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
I had a helpful and constructive meeting with my right hon. Friend and his constituents. No decision has been made with respect to RAF Scampton, and we will consider all of the things that were said in that meeting extremely carefully as we come to a final decision.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
In 2021, only about 10% of rape allegations were referred by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service. The figure is even lower when we take into account other sexual offending. Has my hon. Friend ever received a satisfactory explanation from the police for such a lamentably poor referral rate?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
My hon. Friend is right to raise this really important issue. The nub of the issue is that historically police officers have not developed a new way of dealing with rape in a modern, digital world, among other things. I am pleased to say that the Government are investing extra money in education in this field. For example, the Government are supporting the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing to design and pilot a new rape and other sexual offences investigative skills development programme for police officers, to make sure they know how to deal with victims. Chief Constable Crew, down in Avon and Somerset, is doing similar work.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
In my constituency, I have employers who are struggling to recruit staff living next door to asylum seekers who are not allowed to work. Last week’s Budget talked about boosting employment. Does the Home Secretary agree that lifting the ban on work for asylum seekers would help to boost employment?
Robert Jenrick
We do not agree with that: we do not want to see any further pull factors to the UK. We want to see deterrence suffused throughout our approach, and one element of that is ensuring that those who come illegally are detained and then removed from the country.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I was encouraged by the answers that my right hon. Friend the Security Minister gave earlier in relation to Iran, and the evidence put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), as well as the report in The Times this morning that has been referred to. Does the Security Minister therefore agree that that reflects a deliberate attempt by the Iranian regime to use whatever foothold available in our national life to spread conspiracy theories, extremism and radicalisation?
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we have seen from the Iranian regime, sadly, is that overlap of crime, state threats and the use of terrorism to threaten the British people and our allies around the world. This Government will absolutely not allow those to flourish, and will stand extremely firmly against any such threats in this country.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Indecent exposure and non-contact sexual offending can be gateway offences to very much more serious offending against women and girls, as in the cases of Libby Squire in Hull and of Wayne Couzens, as we heard in his sentencing last week. When are the Government going to act on these early warning signs?
Miss Dines
This is a really important issue, and I am grateful that the right hon. Lady has raised it. We all know from new academic research that indecent exposure can lead to far more serious crimes, and it is now the time that the police chiefs and also the College of Policing take it more seriously. Again, with the extra money that we are spending in this field, with education and allowing police officers to know what they are dealing with, I expect a lot more progress to be made in this area.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
We have seen a number of murders recently in Walsall as a result of knife crime, but we have seen no sign of the Labour police and crime commissioner. Does the Minister agree that it is important that the police and crime commissioner visits all part of the west midlands, rather than simply staying in Birmingham?
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Police and crime commissioners, particularly the one in the west midlands, should visit all parts of their patch. I was also rather concerned to hear that the Labour PCC in the west midlands is formulating plans to close up to 20 police stations, despite having received a 10% increase in funding over recent years, which I think is pretty shocking.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
On the back of last week’s Budget, I made a speech about industrial hemp. The industry is telling me that it can create 105,000 jobs and pay £1 billion in tax if it is allowed to grow—pun intended. I will be writing to the Minister to explain this in detail, but it would be really helpful if I could sit down with the relevant Minister and industry representatives so they can make their case.
Chris Philp
Mr Speaker, I will take this question. The hon. Member and I have had a number of discussions on this topic. We are always happy to engage, discuss points of detail and hear industry representations, so if he would like to meet face to face to discuss it further, I would be very happy to do that.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It was great news in the Budget last week that Dinnington High Street got £12 million for regeneration, knocking down the burnt out building and opening up the marketplace. What we need now is a police station to combat antisocial behaviour. Will the Minister support my campaign to reopen the police station on Dinnington High Street, which will clamp down on antisocial behaviour, and use some of the underspend in the Labour police and crime commissioner’s budget to do that?
Chris Philp
I think my hon. Friend has formulated an excellent plan. I notice that South Yorkshire next year is getting an extra £10.7 million in funding, and the idea he suggests sounds like a good way of spending some of that.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Today I heard harrowing testimonies from the Turkish community in Coventry North West who have lost family members in the tragic earthquake. They would like to be reunited with the family members they have left, hopefully via a family visa scheme, so what steps is the Home Office taking to provide support to those affected by the earthquake in Turkey and Syria?
Robert Jenrick
Our sympathies go to all those affected by the tragic events in Turkey. The UK Government are doing a number of things, including sending specialists to help with those who have been trapped in the wreckage. We have a range of visa options, including family reunion and visit visas, so that those people who have strong family ties to the United Kingdom can come here.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Last week, I raised with the Foreign Secretary that, for the past 15 months, I have been trying to bring to safety five British children in hiding in Kabul after their British father was blown up by the Taliban. They are too young to travel alone, but the Home Office will not grant their Afghan mother a visa, unless she passes an English test. However, she is not allowed to access education in Afghanistan. The Foreign Office tells me it is a Home Office issue. The Home Office is not responding to my correspondence, so will the Minister grant me a meeting to discuss this case?
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to look into the case. I would just say that over 25,000 individuals have been brought safely to the United Kingdom since Operation Pitting and that is something we should all be proud of.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Children are regularly detained in police cells for long periods and for too long without an appropriate adult being present, despite that being both a requirement and an essential safeguard for children. Will the Minister confirm today that, when police powers and procedures data is published later this year, it will include the number of minutes taken for an appropriate adult to arrive and the duration of time present—and if not this year, when?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady is raising a very important question. The case of Child Q is of course on our minds as we consider this. Some revisions are being made to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code of practice—it is code C—that are relevant in this area. In relation to the reporting question she asks, I can certainly undertake to look into that.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
Far-right Islamophobic Danish politician Rasmus Paludan has said he is going to travel from Denmark to Wakefield for the sole purpose of burning a Koran in a public place. Mr Paludan was previously jailed in Denmark for his hateful and racist statements. He is a dangerous man who should not be allowed into this country. Can the Home Secretary assure me and my community that the Government are taking action to prevent this?
Tom Tugendhat
I inform the House that Mr Paludan has been added to the warnings index. Therefore, his travel to the United Kingdom would not be conducive to the public good, and he will not be allowed access.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rail Services
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the progress the Government are making in improving rail services for passengers.
Let me begin by saying how pleased I am that, today, members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers at Network Rail have voted to accept a 5% plus 4% pay offer over two years. Seventy-six per cent. of members voted to accept the offer, on a turnout of nearly 90%, showing just how many of them wanted to call time on this long-running dispute.
From the moment I became Transport Secretary, the Rail Minister and I have worked tirelessly to change the tone of the dispute. We sat down with all the rail union leaders and facilitated fair and reasonable pay offers. Now, all Network Rail union members have resolved their disputes, voting for a reasonable pay increase and accepting the need for a modern railway.
But not every rail worker is being given that chance. Despite the Rail Delivery Group putting a similar fair and reasonable offer on the table on behalf of the train operating companies, the RMT has refused to put it to a vote. It refused to suspend last week’s strike action even to consider it. Such a lack of co-operation is disappointing—and what does it achieve? It deprives the RMT’s own members of a democratic vote, denies them the pay rise they deserve and, most importantly, delivers more disruption to the travelling public.
My message to the RMT is simple: call off your strikes, put the RDG offer to a vote and give all your members a say because it is clear from the vote today—the “overwhelming” vote, in the RMT’s own words—that its members understand that it is time to accept a deal that works, not only for their interests, but for passengers.
Let me turn to the steps we are taking to help passengers and fix the issues on the west coast main line. Members will know that rest-day working, or overtime, is a common way for operators to run a normal timetable. However, last July, drivers for Avanti West Coast, who overwhelmingly belong to the ASLEF union, simultaneously and with no warning stopped volunteering to work overtime. Without enough drivers, Avanti had little choice but to run a much-reduced timetable, with fewer trains per hour from London to destinations in the midlands and the north. Passengers, businesses and communities along vital routes up and down the west coast main line rightly felt let down, facing cancelled services, overcrowded trains and poor customer information. Put simply, it has not been good enough.
While the removal of rest-day working was the main contributing factor, my hon. Friend the Rail Minister and I repeatedly made it clear to Avanti’s owning groups, Trenitalia and First Group, that their performance needed to improve, too, because we should always hold train operators to account for matters within their control. That accountability should come with the chance to put things right. That is why my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), extended Avanti’s contract by six months in October. She rightly set a clear expectation that performance had to improve—no ifs and no buts.
I am pleased to say that not only was Avanti’s recovery plan welcomed by the Office of Rail and Road, but it has led to improvements on the network, with weekday services rising from 180 to 264 trains per day, the highest level in over two years, and cancellation rates falling from around 25% to an average of 4.2% in early March, the lowest level in 12 months. Nearly 90% of Avanti’s trains now arrive within 15 minutes of their scheduled time, over 100 additional drivers have been recruited, reducing reliance on union-controlled overtime working, and it is very pleasing to see Avanti’s new discounted ticketing scheme benefiting passengers on certain routes.
As you would expect me to say, Mr Speaker, there is much more still to do to ensure that Avanti restores services to the level we expect and to earn back the trust that passengers have lost, but we should welcome those improvements and recognise the hard work undertaken to get to this point. The Rail Minister in particular has overseen weekly meetings on Avanti for months and kept hon. Members from both sides of the House regularly informed. He deserves credit, along with Avanti, for that turnaround.
October’s extension was not popular, least of all in parts of this House, but it was the right decision and Avanti is turning a corner. Its recovery so far has given me sufficient confidence to confirm that today we will extend its contract by a further six months, running until 15 October. However, that short-term contract comes with the expectation that it will continue to win back the confidence of passengers, with a particular focus on more reliable weekend services, continued reductions in cancellations, and improvements in passenger information during planned and unplanned disruption. My Department will continue to work closely with Avanti to restore reliability and punctuality to levels that passengers have long demanded and have a right to expect.
I realise some hon. Members will also want to hear about TransPennine Express. I will update the House separately about TransPennine Express ahead of the contract expiring at the end of May, but let me be clear: its current service levels are, frankly, unacceptable and we will hold it to account on its recovery plan. We have made it clear that, unless passengers see significant improvements, like we have on Avanti, all options regarding that contract remain on the table.
I spoke earlier about holding operators to account, but if we stand here and rightly criticise poor operator performance, we should also recognise that across the industry train operating companies have few levers to change it. Avanti, like others, relies on driver good will to run a reliable seven-day-a-week railway. Like others, it is at the mercy of infrastructure issues out of its control. In fact, seven separate infrastructure issues affected Avanti’s performance in the first week of March alone.
Outdated working practices and track resilience are why predictable calls for nationalisation wildly miss the point. Any operator would face those constraints and struggle to run a reliable service. Ideological debates about ownership are therefore a distraction, like wanting to paint your car a new colour when what it needs is a new engine. Only fundamental reform will fix rail’s systemic issues, which is what the Government are delivering, bringing track and train together under the remit of Great British Railways, taking a whole system approach to cost, revenue and efficiency, and freeing up the private sector to innovate and prioritise passengers. Having set out my vision for rail last month, very soon, I will announce the location of the headquarters of Great British Railways, another clear sign of the momentum we are building on reform.
We are getting on with the job of delivering a better railway. It is why we are finally seeing improvements along the west coast main line, as we continue to hold Avanti to account. It is why we are making progress on rail reform. It is why we will always defend the travelling public from unnecessary strike action. And it is why we will always play our part in resolving disputes in a way that is fair to rail workers, the travelling public and the taxpayer. Unlike others, I am not interested in pointless ideological debates about privatisation and nationalisation. The Government are focused on gripping the long-standing issues facing the industry for the benefit of its customers—freight customers and passengers—taking the tough but responsible decisions in the national interest, and building the growing, financially sustainable and modern railway Britain deserves. I commend this statement to the House.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. What a relief it is to see him in his place. Since he announced huge changes on HS2, affecting billions of pounds of investment and jobs, costs to the taxpayer and particularly affecting the north of England, this is the first we have seen or heard from him. You can call the search party off, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the deal on Network Rail, but it is overdue. After 10 months in which the Government refused to negotiate and, according to the chief executive of Network Rail, engaged in “noisy political rhetoric” that had been “counterproductive” to negotiations, a compromise has finally been made. However, passengers across the midlands, the north and Scotland, Members from both sides of the House, and possibly you, Mr Speaker, will be looking on in disbelief today as millions more in taxpayer cash is handed to an operator that is so demonstrably failing passengers. For the Secretary of State to stand at the Dispatch Box and hail a turnaround in the service demonstrates how staggeringly out of touch he is with the lived reality of people in this country.
The figures speak for themselves. Over the past six months, under the Secretary of State’s intensive improvement plan, Avanti West Coast has broken several records—records for delays and cancellations: the highest ever number of trains more than 15 minutes late and the highest single month of cancellations since records began. In one month, almost a quarter of services were badly delayed. That is higher than during the chaos in August and during the height of the pandemic.
That is not all. Under the Secretary of State’s so-called improvement plan, the number of trains on time actually fell to just one third. If that is what success looks like to the Government, is it any wonder that people question whether anything in this country works any more? They look on in disbelief as the answer to this prolonged failure is always millions more in taxpayers’ cash.
This issue matters because across the north, services remain in chaos. Today alone, more than 35 services have been cancelled on TransPennine Express. This has been an issue for not months but years. Six years ago, TransPennine Express had exactly the same issues that it faces today. Then, as now, it blamed staff shortages and the unions. It said then that it would recruit drivers and improve resilience. Then, as now, the Government shrugged their shoulders and let it off the hook as performance plummeted. The Secretary of State dismisses as pointless debates about the future of railways—little wonder, when the answer to the enormous challenges facing the railways is always more of the status quo.
The Conservatives promised competition that would serve passengers and lower fares; instead, as is happening today, contracts are awarded without the faintest hint of competition while fares rise again and again, and passengers suffer. Their answer to it all is more of the same: the same failing operators; the same waste and fragmentation; the same broken system. Labour will end the fractured, fragmented system holding our railways back and put passengers back at the heart of our rail network, prioritising long-term decision making. But the message that today’s decision sends could not be clearer. Under the Conservatives, our broken railways are here to stay. Under the Conservatives, passengers will always come last.
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady must have been listening to a completely different statement; what she just said bears very little relationship to either facts or the things I set out. Let me take her points in turn. I am pleased that she welcomed the acceptance by RMT members of the deal on Network Rail, and that—she obviously did not say this—she recognises that my approach since I became Transport Secretary has clearly been the right one, having helped lead to the situation we are in today. I did not expect her to pay me any credit for that, but I note that she welcomed the result.
The hon. Lady said that the Avanti figures speak for themselves, and they absolutely do. Weekday services have risen in the new timetable since December to 264 trains a day. The cancellation rate that she talked about was last year; the most recent rate is down to 4.2%, the lowest level in 12 months. That is a clear improvement. I have said that it needs to be sustained, which is why Avanti has an extension only until October. Some 90% of its trains now arrive within 15 minutes of their scheduled time, which is not good enough—it is in the pack with the other train operating companies, but at the bottom of the pack. I have been clear that Avanti needs to deliver improvement in the next six-month period. But the figures do speak for themselves: they demonstrate an operator that is turning things around but still has more to do, which was exactly what I said in my statement.
I was clear that TPE’s current service levels are unacceptable and that no options were off the table. I am interested in the hon. Lady’s focus on guarding taxpayers’ money. If I have added this up correctly, she and her Front-Bench colleagues have made unfunded promises of £62 billion of rail spending with no demonstrable means to pay for them. I am afraid that she will have excuse me for finding her professed concern for the taxpayer a little incredible.
Finally, I was surprised that the hon. Lady does not seem to have noticed that far from talking about the status quo, last month I set out in detail a clear set of proposals for reform to bring track and train together in Great British Railways, which I reiterated in my statement. That is what we will continue doing: not having an ideological debate about who owns the railways but talking about delivering better services for passengers. That will remain our relentless focus.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
May I start by welcoming the resolution of the industrial dispute? I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Rail Minister on their constructive work to bring that about.
In his statement, my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out that there are many reasons behind train cancellations and delays, including infrastructure works and failures, industrial action and the weather, as well as those that are the responsibility of the train operating companies. Would it not help scrutiny and accountability of those operators—not just Avanti and TransPennine Express, but all operators—to have available a clear breakdown of the reasons behind poor performance, so that we can hold to account those who are responsible for which bits of the delays?
Mr Harper
I would say two things about that. I will look carefully at whether there is more we can do to show the public clearly and transparently the reasons for delays, so that they can understand their cause. To some extent, I do not think that it is that important to passengers, because they do not really care whether the train operating company or Network Rail has caused the problem—they want it to be fixed. My hon. Friend makes the case for reform. It is exactly why we need to bring together the guiding mind on track and train operators—to join up the system, make better decisions for passengers and, ultimately, deliver a better service, which is what passengers are interested in.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
While the Secretary of State was finishing writing his statement before coming to the House, Avanti was doing what it does best—causing more chaos to the west coast. I was glad that I got the London North Eastern Railway down, rather than Avanti. Avanti was far and away the worst-performing company for cancellations in period 11 and the second worst in period 12, according to Office of Rail and Road tables. It was beaten in period 12 only by TransPennine Express. Coincidentally, both franchises involve FirstGroup. By contrast, ScotRail is by far the best performing major operator for cancellation percentages, and it runs eight times as many trains as Avanti.
Since the much heralded Government intervention, ORR data for periods 8 to 11 shows that the number of trains arriving on time is lower, and hovers around 32% to 35%. The Secretary of State talks about facts, but the fact is that still only a third of trains are arriving on time. Does he really think that merits coming to the Despatch Box and bragging about a turnaround? Even on Avanti’s 15-minute threshold for arrival, performance has been consistently lower than in earlier years. In period 10, a quarter of trains arrived outside that 15-minute window. Period 11 was only marginally better. Yet again, ScotRail significantly outperforms it. LNER has had its own issues, but it still outperforms Avanti by some distance. There is no shareholder dividend system for ScotRail or LNER. Despite the Secretary of State saying that there is ideological battle on this issue, why are the Government still so opposed to nationalising rail companies and giving them public sector ownership?
The Secretary of State mentioned discounted ticketing, yet no one north of Preston benefits from that, so passengers in Scotland are paying full whack for services that barely exist to cross-subsidise tickets for trains that stop 200 miles away. Scottish commuters have seen plans to shelve the Golborne link for HS2, with no replacement identified, and further delays to the Euston link. Even when HS2 comes into being, our trains will be slower on the west coast main line than Avanti’s are at present. Despite the rhetoric about rhetoric, is it not the case that this Government just do not care?
Mr Harper
Let me deal with those questions in order. First, it important to focus on the facts. To take today’s Avanti service, 95.5% of services were running within 15 minutes of their planned time. There was a service issue today, which I know at least one hon. Member was affected by. There was a Network Rail points failure between Carstairs and Carlisle, which resulted in the delay and part-cancellation of two services, including the 0939 from Lancaster, which started instead from Preston and arrived three minutes late at Euston. It is interesting that the issue was caused by the bit of the industry that is, of course, owned by the taxpayer, so that does not demonstrate the hon. Gentleman’s case for nationalisation.
Secondly, on timekeeping, I said in my statement that Avanti’s punctuality was now within the pack of the train operating companies, but that it was at the bottom of the pack and there was more work still to do. I was very clear that Avanti has improved its performance but it is not where it needs to be, which is why I have sufficient confidence only to extend the contract until October. Both I and the Rail Minister have been clear that Avanti needs to continue to deliver improved performance.
On LNER, on the east coast, in my view one of the reasons why good performance is delivered on that route is that there are open-access operators providing competition and choice to passengers. It is important for us to bear that in mind when we think about the future shape of the rail service.
On the hon. Gentleman’s points about HS2, because I have to consider the interests of the taxpayer and the fact that inflation is significantly high at the moment, I had to make difficult decisions. The choice I made was to continue delivering phase 1, in order to ensure we deliver it as promised; to have a short delay to phase 2a, to continue to deliver phase 2b on track; and to look again at delivering a station at Euston, within the budget that has been set. I think those were the right decisions to deliver improved infrastructure, to benefit the country over decades to come.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Rail Minister and the leadership team of Network Rail on bringing this prolonged period of industrial action to a close. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when an offer is put to members of the RMT and employees, it must be clear that they indeed want it and accept it? Does he agree that it is right that the RMT should now put the offer to the train operators to its members as well?
Mr Harper
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The offers that have been made by both Network Rail and the train operating companies—broadly the same value of offers—are fair and reasonable, balancing the interests of the workers on the railways, the passengers and the taxpayer. It is important that the staff themselves get to make a judgment about whether they think those offers are fair, and I urge the RMT to put the offer to the train operating companies to its members, and to let the members decide. Surely that is the right thing for it to do.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It seems that an assessment has been made by the Secretary of State that actually the service is just a little less rubbish. Is that really a just case for extending the contract? My constituents are flabbergasted.
Mr Harper
I was very frank with the House that the service last summer and autumn was completely unacceptable. Avanti brought in a new timetable in December. For the first month, we did not really see any improvement because there was sustained industrial action on the railways. Since then, it has delivered improved performance. Is it good enough? No, it is not—I have made that clear—but I believe that it has demonstrated that it has turned things around enough to justify giving it the chance of a further six months to show that it can do the job. We will see whether it does that job in the next six months, but it has demonstrated that it can turn things around.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
As the Secretary of State suggests, things have started to improve on Avanti West Coast, including through Stoke-on-Trent, but we need to see further improvements, particularly when it comes to services and delays. But that is not just down to the operators: as the Office of Rail and Road suggests, every single Network Rail region has seen more delays attributed to Network Rail than in the previous period. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must focus on track as well as train if we are to get the improvements we need?
Mr Harper
I very much agree. The Rail Minister has met Network Rail to raise the specific issues that my hon. Friend raises and others, but let me say two other things. First, now that we have resolved all the industrial disputes on Network Rail, the company’s management can now focus 100% on delivering improved performance rather than on dealing with an industrial dispute. Secondly, it has ambitious plans for reform to deliver improved maintenance of the network in a safer way for the people who work on it and at a lower cost for the taxpayer, all of which will deliver better services for my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I assume from the Secretary of State’s earlier comments that he is aware of my Twitter thread about my cancelled and then delayed journey to London this morning. It will have come as no surprise to my constituents, whose lives have been disrupted by this train company for far, far too long. Today’s announcement of the contract extension has been met with anger by my constituents. I have to say that Avanti really did take the biscuit today when it even managed to serve mouldy food in its on-board shop. My constituents would like to know what on earth Avanti has to do, other than be the worst-performing rail operator in the country, to actually lose the contract.
Mr Harper
I would say a couple of things. First, I did see the hon. Lady’s tweet, which is why I set out clearly the position with respect to the train service that was disrupted this morning: there were two services that were part-cancelled, and the rest of Avanti’s services this morning were running perfectly all right. The issue with the cancellation was to do not with Avanti, but with Network Rail’s performance.
On the hon. Lady’s second point, I come back to what I said earlier. I am not pretending that Avanti has fixed its performance or that it is up there with the best-performing train operating companies—far from it—but the question I faced was whether it had done enough to demonstrate that it was capable of turning its services around. I have set that out, and I will not try the patience of the House by saying it all again. It has made a significant improvement—enough to justify an extension until October. Is there more to do? There absolutely is. The hon. Lady is right to make that strong argument on behalf of her constituents, and we will hold the company to account.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is the antithesis of the Fat Controller, but may I thank him very much indeed for all his efforts in securing a satisfactory agreement with the unions recently? Owing to the complete shambles that at times we see from Avanti, which purportedly seeks to run a rail service, there will be concern among my constituents. Has my right hon. Friend reflected on the question of over-promising in bidding for franchises? Will his judgment of Avanti’s success or otherwise over the next six months be conditional on improvements such as the ability to book tickets further in advance than is currently possible?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend is quite right, and I will take his initial comment in the spirit that I am sure he intended. We will judge Avanti in the same way that it is judged on the fee that it earns: on its operational performance; on the experience of its customers; on its financial management; on how it works with Network Rail, other train operating companies and other stakeholders; and on the fundamental performance that it delivers in its timekeeping, its punctuality and its level of cancellations. It will also be judged on its customer service experience. It is quite right to say that it has had some issues with the ability to book tickets ahead, and over the past week it has had some issues with its website. It knows that it needs to fix those issues and that we will hold it to account, as will my hon. Friend.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I just cannot reconcile the Secretary of State’s statement that services have improved with my own experience as a passenger over the past month, from today’s minor inconvenience of no food being available on the long journey from Bangor to London, to the delays in last week’s trains, to what happened the previous week when the trains did not turn up at all—and that is on top of the withdrawal of direct services on the vital Irish route through my constituency and Ynys Môn to Holyhead. How can the Secretary of State have any confidence that in six months’ time the service from Avanti will be any better?
Mr Harper
There has been an improvement over time. Last year, I made it very clear that services were completely unacceptable. Avanti introduced a new timetable in December, but it was impossible to see any improvement during the first month of its operation owing to sustained industrial action affecting either the train operating companies or Network Rail. Avanti has since improved its performance, but I accept that it is not all the way there, which is why I extended its contract by only six months. Those at Avanti are well aware that they are still on probation and have more work to do, and I shall expect to see sustained improvement on punctuality and timekeeping, on cancellations, and on the way they work with their customers. We will be holding them to account, and my hon. Friend the Rail Minister will continue his regular meetings with them to ensure that their performance continues to improve, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
I am pleased to see that the cancellation rate has fallen to 4.2%, but one swallow does not a summer make, and this service has been letting my constituents and me down for a prolonged period of time. What will the Secretary of State be looking for during those six months, and will he be able to publish the precise metrics of what he would consider to be a success in order to allow the contract to be refreshed in future?
Mr Harper
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. I said in my statement that performance had been poor, but improvements had been made. This will be a question of punctuality and timekeeping—of whether Avanti hits the required on-time performance—the number of cancellations, and how easy its customers find it to deal with the service. I will also have to judge it on the basis of what is going on in the industry. It would be much easier to judge the performance of train operating companies if their staff were not going on strike, which I why I think that if the RMT puts its deal to the members, we can resolve the industrial dispute. The issue of holding management to account would then be very clear, because it would be the only thing left on which we can focus. It is very difficult to hold management to account when the workers keep going on strike and disrupting the service for passengers.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that the contract would be extended with the “expectation” that Avanti would win back the confidence of customers. I have to say that my constituents in south Manchester are a long way from having confidence in Avanti. I speak regularly to people who are driving rather than taking the train because they know it is the only way in which they can guarantee that they will arrive at their destination on time. Leaving aside the cancellation statistics, how will the Secretary of State measure the confidence of customers in Avanti’s currently shambolic service?
Mr Harper
I made it very clear that Avanti would have to earn back the trust of its customers, which, for rather obvious reasons, it has lost over the past year. The only way to win back the trust of customers in a service business such as passenger rail is to deliver sustained performance improvement over time. During the most recent period for which we have statistics, the cancellation figures clearly improved, but Avanti still has more work to do. It needs to sustain that performance, making the trains more punctual and reducing the number of cancellations for a sustained period. If it does that, it will win back the trust of its customers. If it does not, it will not, and we will make decisions accordingly.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. The arrangements that will hopefully end the strikes are very good news, and the RMT should certainly ballot its members. As for Avanti West Coast, my constituents who use Lichfield Trent Valley station will be pleased to see what has been done, but we do need more improvement. He has used the phrase “Great British Railways” a number of times. I am really looking forward to any announcement that its headquarters might be in Derby.
Mr Harper
On that last point, I promised to update the House before Easter on where GBR’s HQ will be, and I will stick to that promise. On my hon. Friend’s other points, I reiterate what she says: this is about delivering reform and bringing track and train together in GBR, which will lead to improved performance across the rail network.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Secretary of State seems to be celebrating a 4% cancellation rate on Avanti. May I invite him to look at the cancellation rate on Thameslink trains from St Albans City station, which is 8%? In fact, only 47% of our trains run on time, and our tickets are almost a third more expensive per mile than the average London commuter route, which means that St Albans is now rated the worst commuter station into London. Will the Secretary of State look at those cancellation rates and tell me when the prices affecting my constituency will go down and when reliability will go up?
Mr Harper
We look at the performance of the rail network overall but, as the Chairman of the Transport Committee said, we need more transparent information. The most important thing is that lots of the issues to do with the performance of train operating companies are partly to do with infrastructure. Passengers do not care what causes the problems, which is why GBR, with its new regional structure, will ensure that we deliver a more joined-up system and better overall performance, which is what is ultimately important for the hon. Lady’s constituents.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is very positive that RMT employees at Network Rail are ready to accept the offer, and therefore disappointing that those who work for the train operating companies have not been given a chance to express their views. On the specific points in the negotiations, does he agree that reforms to working practices in order to modernise and bring greater efficiency to the railways are critical to their future? Can he confirm that this is central to the negotiations taking place?
Mr Harper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for reform in general, but this is also part of the deals that have been accepted. On Network Rail, the modernising maintenance programme is central to delivering the savings that will help to fund the pay offer that has been made. We need to see similar reforms in the train operating companies in order to deliver a reliable, seven-days-a-week rail service that is better for passengers, particularly given that we have seen a bounce-back in leisure travel at the expense of commuter rail, which I do not think is going to come back post-pandemic. We need to see a more flexible railway delivering for passengers.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Last year we saw £4.1 million in bonus payouts despite the worst performance figures for all rail operators. Today we see contract extensions despite the Office of Rail Regulation showing that 17% of trains had been cancelled since December. Does the Minister think that rewarding failure on this scale is justifiable to the UK taxpayer or, indeed, to passengers?
Mr Harper
I do not think the hon. Lady listened very carefully to what I said. I did not say that Avanti had fixed all the problems, but it has delivered an improvement in performance compared with last year. As I have said, since it introduced its timetable in December, we did not see much improvement in the first month because either train operating company staff or Network Rail staff were on strike, but since then it has delivered an improved performance. Has it improved as far as it needs to go? No, it has not—I was clear about that. We need to see that performance sustained over the coming months, and that is how we will judge its performance when we make a decision towards the end of this next six-month period.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The vast majority of my constituents who use rail rely on Chiltern Railways, and passengers have faced massive and dangerous overcrowding on services to stations such as Haddenham and Thame Parkway and Princes Risborough at commuter times and at weekends. That is due in no small part to customers frustrated with Avanti who would ordinarily choose Avanti to go from Birmingham to London being displaced on to the Chiltern line instead. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the impact of Avanti’s failures on overcrowding on other railways, and what can he do to alleviate that pressure?
Mr Harper
I have not made a specific assessment of the extent to which Avanti’s poor performance, particularly last year, has led to the effects that my hon. Friend describes, but he has set them out clearly. If the improved performance that has taken place over the past few months is sustained, it will enable a reverse of that effect, which will deliver better services not only for those who use Avanti but for his constituents who use Chiltern’s services, for whom the level of overcrowding will reduce.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Frankly, we could do with a Secretary of State who has to use Avanti West Coast twice a week, as many of us in this Chamber do. I must be the unluckiest rail user in this place, because I always seem to be on a train that he says is one of the 10% that triggers delay repay. Avanti has failed, and it has failed spectacularly. Even by the Government’s own admission, Avanti has failed to the point that my constituents genuinely do not understand why it was allowed to have £4 million of bonuses and £12 million of dividends. Can he explain to my constituents why we have a rail service that allows and rewards abject failure?
Mr Harper
I cannot help that the location of my Forest of Dean constituency means I use Great Western Railway rather than Avanti. The hon. Gentleman can criticise me, but that is the geographical fact of the case.
Mr Harper
I used Avanti when, for example, I went to Manchester to meet the northern Mayors to discuss Avanti’s performance when it needed improving. Since I met them, Avanti’s performance has significantly improved.
On bonuses, the hon. Gentleman is talking about a period that predates last year’s extremely poor performance. We have not yet seen the published figures to assess the period since last year.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman is right that we need to see sustained performance improvement. As I said in my statement, we will make sure Avanti has done that when we come to make a decision about the period after October.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I am concerned that the Government have extended the Avanti West Coast contract to 15 October 2023. My Ynys Môn constituents and businesses are at their wits’ end over Avanti’s terrible and unreliable service to Holyhead, which is the UK’s second busiest port. The Minister mentioned that more than 100 additional drivers have been recruited, reducing reliance on overtime. Is there a target figure that Avanti needs to recruit by 15 October for the contract to be extended?
Mr Harper
The majority of pre-covid services to the north Wales coast have been restored, and there are five trains a day in each direction between London and Holyhead. Avanti has recruited more than 100 new drivers, which needs to be sustained for it to continue delivering a reliable timetable without depending on rest-day working. We will work closely with Avanti to make sure that performance continues over the coming months.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
During the period of Avanti’s improvement plan, the operator had the highest proportion on record of trains running more than 15 minutes late. By the Secretary of State’s own admission, Avanti has also lost the confidence of its customers. Why are the Government rewarding this gross incompetence with yet another six-month extension?
Mr Harper
I was clear in my statement about the facts on Avanti’s punctuality. Although it is now back in the pack with the other train operating companies, it is at the bottom of the pack and still has more work to do. The question for me, as I said in my statement and as I said in answer to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), is about whether Avanti’s performance has improved enough to demonstrate it can continue improving. The statistics I read out show that Avanti is clearly running a much better service, with 40% more trains, and has significantly reduced cancellations in the past few months, but I was very frank that its performance is not good enough today. Avanti needs to continue delivering service improvements for us to give it a further contract. That is what we will judge Avanti by as we run forward to October.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I must confess that I was disappointed to hear from my right hon. Friend that he has decided to extend Avanti’s contract by six months. Avanti has been letting down the people of north Wales for far too long and I had hoped that he would be coming here to say that he was terminating that contract. It would appear that the progress Avanti has made is that it is no longer delivering a truly deplorable service and instead is delivering something rather less than a mediocre one. Will he confirm that he will expect Avanti to be delivering an excellent service by October, failing which it will be stripped of its franchise?
Mr Harper
I think my right hon. Friend is being a little unfair in not recognising the performance improvements Avanti has made. I completely accept that its performance last summer and autumn was terrible, and I said that, but it has made significant improvements. It needs to continue those improvements, particularly in delivering reduced cancellations, improvements at weekends—its weekday services are better than its weekend ones—and improvements in how it deals with its customers. All those things absolutely need to continue happening for both him, and me, to be satisfied with Avanti.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Today, more than 30 services were cancelled by TransPennine Express. The Minister has outlined his concern about the service, so will he reassure the House that when performance figures are published we will find that TPE will not have received a penny in performance bonuses, given the misery that millions are facing?
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady is right about TPE; I made it clear in my statement that its current performance is unacceptable. The rail Minister and I met its senior leadership and made it clear that the current performance was unacceptable. As I said at this Dispatch Box, if there is not considerable improvement, all options are on the table.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Staying with TPE, the Secretary of State will know that I have raised this issue on more occasions than I would wish to do so. The service out of Cleethorpes is supposed to be hourly through to Doncaster, Sheffield and Manchester, but today there was a six-hour gap between 8.20 and 14.20, and 10 days ago there was an eight-hour gap between trains. This is having a terrible effect on business and leisure facilities, and tourism to Cleethorpes, and it has been going on for 16 months, so it is not something new. When he comes to make a decision on TPE, will he please take an extremely robust position?
Mr Harper
I know that my hon. Friend has had a particularly difficult time on the route that serves his constituents. I was clear at the Dispatch Box that TPE’s service is not acceptable, to put it mildly, and it needs to improve. The one thing I would say is that it is overly dependent on rest-day working. When I met northern Mayors, who made this point to me clearly, I ensured that a refreshed, more generous offer on rest-day working was made to ASLEF, but again, it did not even put it to its members. That offer would have made a significant difference in the performance delivered to his constituents. I ask ASLEF to look again at the offer that has been made on rest-day working and take it up, so that we can do the most important thing: deliver improved services to passengers, rather than continue an unnecessary dispute.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Avanti’s abysmal performance is not just demoralising its own hard-working staff on stations and on trains, but causing a huge blow to our economy. The Lakes is the second biggest visitor destination in the country, and it is connected with the biggest, here in London, and the impact on the economy is huge and massively damaging. During this six-month probation period we are talking about, Avanti has recorded almost one in five trains cancelled, with almost one in two delayed. What appalling additional reduction in the quality of service must Avanti do to lose the contract? People in Cumbria will be appalled at the apparent low standards.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me if I have this wrong, but I do not think he was here for the whole of my statement, so he may have missed the bit where I set out the improvement that Avanti had delivered. It weekday services have risen from 180 to 264 trains a day, and cancellations were down to 4.2%. I made it clear that Avanti had demonstrated enough improvement to justify the extension until October, but it absolutely has more work to do to deliver for his constituents and others who use the service. That is what the Rail Minister and I will be expecting Avanti to do in the months running up to October.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The ideologically driven actions of the RMT have brought chaos to the wider economy. Rail strikes alone cost the UK hospitality sector £1.5 billion in December—that affects jobs and livelihoods. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the Conservative party will always be the champion of the public and their right to get on with their daily lives—even in the face of the RMT’s actions?
Mr Harper
That is a very well-aimed question, because it demonstrates that, when we have rail strikes, there is an immediate impact on not just passengers but the wider economy. I reiterate that, with a 90% turnout and a 76% acceptance of the offer, Network Rail’s RMT staff have demonstrated that they thought it was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. They have accepted it, which seems to me to justify the RMT putting a very similar offer to its members working in the train operating companies. I would urge it to do so, and to do so quickly, so that it can call off next week’s strikes. That probably needs to happen by the middle of this week so that we do not damage the passengers, or the businesses that depend on them, any more than they already have been.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The people of Stockport have to suffer the extremely poor services provided by Avanti and TransPennine Express. It is extremely frustrating that the Government have decided to extend Avanti’s contract by six months. The Secretary of State pretends that Avanti was an excellent service provider before last summer, but in 2021-22 it had the most complaints of any operator. Why do new figures prove that the Government sanctioned a £12 million dividend for Avanti shareholders, and will the Secretary of State demand that money back?
Mr Harper
I think I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the period before the very poor service last year. However, he will also know that the judgment about whether train operating companies have hit the performance targets they have been given is reached independently, not by me, and I think that is a good safeguard.
On the hon. Gentleman’s general point about Avanti’s and TransPennine’s performance, and whether it is good enough, I was clear that TP’s performance is not good enough at the moment. If TP does not demonstrate improved performance, all options remain on the table.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Rail Minister on successfully working their way through the Network Rail strike. They have rightly mentioned winning back the trust of customers, so as they start to consider whether Avanti, TransPennine Express and others have successfully improved their performance, will they also consider that open-access operators—which the Secretary of State mentioned as a shining example of good practice and which have maintained their customers’ affection—may be the answer for both these routes? Why do we not have more of them and fewer monumental, single provider-dominant contracts?
Mr Harper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. On the point about drivers, almost 100 drivers have been recruited—I said more than 100 earlier, but it is almost 100, and I would like to correct the record at this early opportunity.
My hon. Friend’s point about open-access operators is right. As I said in answer to a previous question, that competition and choice are welcome, but we can only have that when we have sufficient capacity—that is important. I also note that Avanti’s announcement today makes it clear that the new managing director it has brought in to grip its performance and to continue delivering improved performance has been responsible for two of those very successful open-access operators. I think that bodes well for Avanti’s customers.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
I have to tell the Secretary of State that the only cancellation my constituents would welcome is the cancellation of the Avanti contract. He mentioned the five services a day between Holyhead and Crewe, but he may not be aware that two of them have been cancelled today. For communities in Chester and north Wales, this ongoing nightmare is affecting lives and economic performance. When will the Secretary of State stop rewarding failure and get a grip on this service?
Mr Harper
I think the hon. Lady’s question would be fairer if I had pretended there was not more work to do. Avanti has delivered performance improvement, running 40% more services, reducing the rate of cancellations to 4.2% and running significantly more trains on time, but I was very clear that it needs to do better on punctuality and deliver sustained improvement on cancellations. I know how much cancellations inconvenience passengers—not just those who wanted to catch the cancelled services, but passengers on other services that are then overcrowded. Avanti has work to do, but I think it has done enough so far to justify a six-month extension. We will consider whether it has sustained that performance when we have to make a further decision later this year.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The service my constituents endured from Stoke-on-Trent last year was truly appalling, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged earlier. Does he agree that, although things have been better this year—I can testify myself that there are more services, they are less crowded, and most of them turn up on time—it is still not good enough, and 4.2% is not an acceptable cancellation rate? Will he hold Avanti to account before extending the contract any further?
Mr Harper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s words, which paint a balanced picture. He recognises that there has been improvement, and I have talked to colleagues in this House and outside who have recognised that improvement, but there is more to do. Avanti has more to do on driving down cancellations and on punctuality, where it is at least now in the pack with the other train operating companies, but at the bottom of the pack. That is why we have only extended the contract for another six months. Avanti must demonstrate to our satisfaction that it can deliver that improved performance in a sustained way, which is what is important for my hon. Friend and his constituents.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
TransPennine’s performance is rubbish. Its cancellation rates are appalling, Members on both sides of the House have lost confidence in it, and it cannot even run the toilets at Hull Paragon station properly. Why do we have to wait until May for a decision on the future of TransPennine?
Mr Harper
I think I was very clear in my characterisation of TransPennine’s performance. I was perhaps a little more diplomatic than the right hon. Lady, who was franker in her assessment, but I said that its performance was not acceptable. The contract expires on 23 May; I will have to make a decision ahead of that and, as I have said, all options remain on the table if TransPennine does not improve its performance.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It is five years since the newly refurbished London Bridge opened; apart from teething problems at the start, it ran relatively smoothly until the Government-imposed timetable changes came in in December. Since then, we have seen several very dangerous situations occur at London Bridge. At a stakeholder meeting a couple of weeks ago, Southeastern stated that one of the problems is that it has to make £10 million-worth of savings, imposed by the Government. The Secretary of State may not be a portly controller, but he is the controller none the less. Is it not the tinkering of this Government that is leading to a chaotic railway service, whether on Southeastern or Avanti?
Mr Harper
The particular set of circumstances the hon. Gentleman talks about requires Network Rail to work closely with Transport for London, as it is doing, to look at those circumstances. I know there have been issues with the timetable on his particular line and I remember a conversation he had with my hon. Friend the Rail Minister at the last set of oral questions, where my hon. Friend was able to supply the House with some positive news. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will take that away and look at it to see whether there is more we need to do in the short term to improve performance for his constituents.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Many of my constituents are unfortunate enough to have to rely on Avanti. They thought the Secretary of State’s predecessor should not have extended the contract last time, let alone this time. I want to look at some of his claims about improved performance, because they do not stand up to scrutiny over any extended period of time. Everybody knows what is going on here, because they have experienced the service for themselves. The average number of cancellations between September 2022 and March 2023 was just as high as over the previous six months, and Avanti had the highest proportion of trains more than 15 minutes late on record. The travelling public know it, we know it, and I suspect he knows it too: Avanti should be stripped of its franchise.
Mr Harper
I think we should judge Avanti’s performance fairly. The hon. Gentleman is mashing periods together. Before December, I was quite clear that Avanti absolutely had to deliver an improved timetable—that did not start until December. Of course, as I said in response to previous questions, the first month or so of that was disrupted enormously by industrial action either in the train operating company or in Network Rail, or in both. Since Avanti brought it its new timetable, it has delivered 40% more services. Yes, it has not delivered sustained reductions in cancellations, but it has delivered reductions more recently.
There is no point in looking at the performance last summer and autumn, which I have accepted was terrible. There was a problem to fix, which is why Avanti needed to bring in its new timetable. Since it has done that, it has delivered improvements. Are they good enough? No, which is why I have extended it for a further six months only. Avanti is very clear that it has to deliver sustained performance improvement, and I judged that that was the best way to deliver improved performance for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and those of other hon. Members.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The performance and service of York-based LNER is the best across the network. That service is under the operator of last resort. By contrast, TransPennine Express, which is operated by FirstGroup, is failing my constituents abysmally. Will the Secretary of State look at bringing TPE under the same public ownership as LNER, and draw on York’s advanced rail and digital rail cluster to make TPE an effective and efficient service?
Mr Harper
TPE’s contract expires on 28 May, not 23 May. I recognise what the hon. Lady says about the excellent skills that are available in York. On LNER, that franchise often delivered very good performance. The reasons why it ended up being brough under the control of the OLR were to do with financial performance —the operational performance was very good. On TPE, we are carefully considering the performance of the existing company and structure, and we will make a judgment about that. I have said that no option is off the table if TPE does not deliver improved services. I listened carefully to what she said, and I will bear it in mind when we make a decision.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement. For able-bodied people like us, travel can be a problem, but it is even more of a problem for disabled people. Will he outline whether improvements to disabled access will be extended to rural locations, which, although small in nature, are vital and pivotal to connectivity, especially for disabled people, who wish to be—and must be—fully considered and included in this statement and, indeed, in the delivery of services?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman will know that, in a previous life, I served as Minister for Disabled People, so I take accessible transport very seriously. That is why one thing that I did when I became Secretary of State was to make all my Ministers clear that, in all their decisions, they had to think about how disabled people could have access to all modes of transport. He will know about the services that we have to improve station accessibility. I will make sure that, as we think about rural services, the Rail Minister thinks about access for all, because that is incredibly important, as the hon. Gentleman says.
Immigration and Nationality Fees (Exemption for NHS Clinical Staff)
Monday 20th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Nationality Fees (Exemption for NHS Clinical Staff) Bill 2022-23 View all Immigration and Nationality Fees (Exemption for NHS Clinical Staff) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exempt NHS clinical staff from the requirement to pay fees under section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014; and for connected purposes.
I declare a partial interest for the avoidance of doubt, as my fiancé is a healthcare professional from overseas. However, he already has his British citizenship, so would derive no benefit from this Bill whatever.
The NHS is a fundamental part of British life, as it has been for decades. It has been under a particular spotlight for the past couple of years as we have battled with the most significant public health crisis in our lifetimes, and right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House have spoken at length about the debt we owe to the NHS clinicians who put themselves in harm’s way to make sure they could provide healthcare to the rest of us, who rely on them so profoundly.
I have spoken on this topic several times both in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and last year I tabled an amendment to the Nationality and Borders Bill to exempt NHS clinical workers from paying the fees associated with applying for indefinite leave to remain. I discussed the amendment with the Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), as well as with the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who had responsibilities in this area. I was told that the amendment, which was unusual in this House in having signatures and support from Members from six different parties, was not acceptable to the Government because we could not make special cases out of certain groups of people. Shortly afterwards, as the Bill was making its way through the House of Lords, the Government announced that armed forces veterans would be exempted from paying fees for ILR applications. I thought that was interesting, given that NHS workers had not been worthy of a special classification just a couple of months before.
The Home Secretary at the time, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said:
“Waiving the visa fee for those Commonwealth veterans and Gurkhas with six years’ service who want to settle here is a suitable way of acknowledging their personal contribution and service to our nation.”
To take nothing away from the veterans who have put their lives on the line in service of the country and the Commonwealth, we would be hard-pressed to find many members of the public who do not believe that our NHS clinical staff are worthy of the same consideration.
While the entire NHS played a vital role, our thanks and gratitude should go in particular to NHS workers who have come from other countries. Those individuals have travelled huge distances to be here, are often separated from their families, and have put their own lives at risk to help and save our lives—citizens from a different country to their own. Regardless of their or our citizenship, the duty and responsibility to care and contribute to the wellbeing of others always comes first for them. It is amazing, and it should be highly commended.
I welcome the many steps that the Government have already taken for foreign NHS workers, including the health and care worker visa and the exemption from the immigration health surcharge, but we need to go further. These people want to make the UK their home. They have put down roots, and we have a duty to put in place a framework that allows them to do just that, without thousands of pounds-worth of costs just to stay in a country to which they have already contributed so much.
With fees for indefinite leave to remain at more than £2,400 and citizenship applications costing another £1,800 or so, plus another few hundred for biometrics, English language tests and all the supplementary things that need to be done, the total cost of the naturalisation process is more like £5,000—among the highest in the world. The process of becoming a citizen for our NHS workers is costly and challenging, and includes the ridiculous “Life in the UK” test, which asks questions about such useful topics as the Great Exhibition of 1851 and which British actors have won Oscars recently. Quite how anyone could be expected to integrate into British society without that pivotal knowledge remains a mystery.
Doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychiatrists and all manner of clinicians come to our shores to work in the NHS. They pay their taxes every month. They work in intensive care units, high dependency units, paediatric cancer centres and in everything from obstetrics and neonatal units to geriatrics and palliative care. They spend their working life in this country saving lives, and that was especially so during the pandemic. They have to take out loans to pay for their residency applications. As I have said a number of times before, we should not be driving them into debt; we should be in their debt.
It is our duty to create a new route to citizenship for NHS clinicians—one that will not leave workers in debt, in poverty or in constant worry about funding their next application—by abolishing the costs associated with applying for indefinite leave to remain and citizenship for NHS clinical workers. There would obviously have to be some caveats, in that those workers would need to have worked in the NHS for at least three years and would also need to commit to remaining in the NHS for at least a further three years; otherwise, the fees that they would have paid would become due. That is necessary to stop people gaining the benefit that I hope would benefit clinicians in our NHS, then deciding to go into the private sector immediately after they have received their right to reside. That would be counterproductive to what I am trying to achieve.
I am proud that our NHS attracts such global talent and recruits from around the world; quite frankly, we would not be able to run it without them. In 2021, over 160,000 NHS staff from over 200 different countries stated that they were a non-British nationality, accounting for nearly 15% of all staff for whom a nationality is known. However, the current fees and process is a huge barrier for both future NHS workers, who are put off coming to the UK to fill our many vacancies, and current NHS workers, who are unable to afford the final step and receive the permanent residency that they have earned through their service to our country.
Residency and citizenship should not be about cost—whether a person can afford it—but about contribution and inclusion in our communities. NHS workers have perhaps made the biggest contribution of all, saving our lives and keeping us safe. Despite being such valued members of the communities in which they live and work, without being citizens they struggle to be fully part of those communities. Without ILR, individuals face barriers to home ownership, as it is almost impossible to get a mortgage, as well as barriers in higher education and so many other aspects of life. Therefore, scrapping the fees would not only make residency and citizenship more affordable and a viable option for foreign workers in our NHS, but would create a more diverse and, crucially, a more integrated society.
People from other countries who have worked in our NHS during this pandemic and throughout their lives deserve to be able to call the UK their home, and actually feel as though it is. The pandemic had one benefit, in that it highlighted what many of us already knew: that our NHS workers, whether British or not, are the backbone of our health service and our country. Those who have come here to provide such incredible care should not be penalised for it, but currently, the high application fees do just that. In conclusion, it is time to abolish the fees for indefinite leave to remain and citizenship for those clinical staff who work in our NHS, so that those who spend time helping and treating us can finally feel like they belong, and are welcomed in our country with open arms.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Rob Roberts, Dr Philippa Whitford, Martyn Day, Margaret Ferrier, Ben Lake, Sarah Atherton, Mark Fletcher, Henry Smith, Jim Shannon and Claudia Webbe present the Bill.
Rob Roberts accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 272).
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a Budget that gets straight to work in addressing the Prime Minister’s five priorities, which are of course the people’s priorities. We on the Conservative Benches are putting the country firmly on a path to halve inflation, grow the economy, reduce debt, cut waiting lists and stop the boats. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like that, not just because they do not have a plan to address the priorities themselves, but because they do not recognise the things that matter to the British people in the first place: strong, financially stable families; public services that innovate and pioneer new technologies; high-paying, high-quality jobs for our children; strong borders; and a respect for British law and our way of life.
It is because we on the Conservative Benches focus on the priorities of the entire country that the British economy is getting back on track. Ten-year gilt rates, debt-servicing costs, mortgage rates—all of them are falling, and inflation has already peaked. Despite continuing global instability, the Office for Budget Responsibility reported just last week that inflation in the UK will have fallen from 10.7% in the final quarter of last year to 2.9% by the end of 2023. Thanks to this Government’s responsive and responsible approach, we will have more money for public services benefiting British families right now, and less of a burden on our children and grandchildren. Our plan to deliver on the Prime Minister’s priorities is already starting to work. We have restored stability, and now it is time for the next part of our plan.
Michelle Donelan
It may have escaped the hon. Member, but we have had a global pandemic and a war in Ukraine.
We are using these firm foundations to build long-term sustainability and healthy growth—growth that will bring security, prosperity and opportunity to British businesses and British people. To get that growth, we are on a trajectory of innovation in every part of our economy. Since the industrial revolution, our country’s willingness to rethink and reimagine has led to the inventions of the telephone, the TV, the world wide web and much more. That is why, under this Government, our tech sector has already become third in the world to reach a value of $1 trillion, behind only the US and China. We are ranked fourth above China, Germany and Japan in the global innovation index, we are second in the global talent index and we have four of the world’s top 10 universities.
I could go on, but we are not a Government who are focused on where we were or where we are; we are a Government who are focused on the future. That is why we have set up the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology with one single mission—making Britain a science and technology superpower. It has been just six weeks since we became the new Department, and we have already published the UK science and technology framework, setting out our vision for science and technology. We have responded to the second largest bank failure in the US, and this Government helped facilitate a deal to save the UK arm of Silicon Valley Bank, protecting thousands of important jobs in the life sciences and tech companies, and safeguarding them in the long-term.
In the Budget, we announced a staggering £2.5 billion of funding for the quantum technologies that we anticipate will revolutionise everything from healthcare to farming. That built on the announcement we made of £370 million of new moneys for things such as technology missions, which will set Britain up to lead on artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, bioengineering and much more. These things matter, because the British public rightly expect Britain to be leading in the technologies of the future and for these technologies to deliver real tangible benefits to their local communities and their families.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know, because I have told her before, that there are 1,000 jobs across universities in Wales that are about just to end because of the sudden end of EU structural funding. The Government promised that not a penny less would go to Wales for those jobs in 260 projects that are generating green growth in high-tech areas. Will she keep those jobs going by providing bridge funding for the next year?
Michelle Donelan
The hon. Member has already raised that with me, and I have already said that I will meet him to discuss it. The Government have of course launched the shared prosperity fund, and we will ensure that spending on research and development outside the south-east is increased by 40% by 2030.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How are we going to get vital private sector investment into the industries the Secretary of State is so rightly concentrated on when so many of our own institutions are concentrating on Government debt, effectively crowding out this highly vibrant sector?
Michelle Donelan
My right hon. Friend is quite right. That is one of the key pillars in our science and technology framework. This should be a partnership with industry. We have already begun that journey, working with the likes of the Schmidt Foundation, and I look forward to updating the House on our further collaboration with industry.
Let us look at something like Alzheimer’s disease, an illness that is projected to impact one in three people born this year in their lifetime. Many people here today or watching the debate will know at first hand the devastating impact that that illness can cause, yet there is hope, through the extraordinary opportunities for progress made possible by quantum technology. British researchers are already in the building stages of quantum sensors that can map the human brain in a way that is unimaginable to us at the moment.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
My father has dementia and is in a care home—he has been during covid—so I know that it is really important to make significant advances in this field. One of the difficulties for business that are trying to take great scientific and medical ideas into the market is that it is much more costly if we have a different regulatory regime in this country from the rest of Europe. Will the Secretary of State ensure that we align our regulatory regime in this field with the rest of Europe, rather than diverge from it?
Michelle Donelan
The Chancellor, at the same time as delivering the Budget, published the Vallance review of the regulation of new and emerging technologies. That is all about how we can support the incubation of technologies, and how we should have a lighter touch to regulation in the first stages and then synergise with the rest of the world later on. I invite the hon. Member to read that very useful document.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Michelle Donelan
I will make some progress, because I am getting nowhere and I have already been very generous.
We announced an extraordinary £2.5 billion in the Budget for quantum technology over the next decade. We did more than fund a crucial strand of scientific discovery; we laid the building blocks for a future where early diagnosis and prevention of these kinds of diseases gives us more time with the ones we love and cherish.
Emma Hardy
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. It really is welcome news that we are doing advanced research and using AI and technology. Will she look again at the rules for animal testing and the use of live animals in experimentation? Surely, as we develop our AI research and the technology side of research, we should be moving away from the barbaric and cruel use of animals.
Michelle Donelan
We are supporting and accelerating advances in biomedical science and technologies to reduce reliance on animals in research. I pledge to write to the hon. Member with further details on that rather than hold the House up any longer.
This is the power of innovation when we are bold enough to unleash it: we already rank second in the world to the US for the number of quantum companies. On top of that, the quantum technologies mission, which I announced a few weeks ago, dedicates £70 million in this spending review period to accelerate quantum technologies. Building on the success of the 10-year national quantum technologies programme from 2014, the new strategy sets out our vision and plan to further establish the UK as a world leader by 2033. We want these technologies out of the lab and into our lives, because we know what they mean to families and communities in every part of our country.
The same goes for the limitless possibilities before us in the world of artificial intelligence. My vision for an AI-enabled Britain is one where NHS heroes are able to save lives using AI technologies that were unimaginable a few decades ago. I want our police, our transport networks, our climate scientists and many more to be empowered by AI technologies that will make Britain the smartest, healthiest, safest and happiest place to live and work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On saving lives, will the Secretary of State give way?
Jim Shannon
I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has said, and there are clearly many positives in the Budget, but the British Heart Foundation contacted me to say that cardiac care is time-critical, and that delays to vital tests, procedures and operations can lead to otherwise preventable heart attacks. At the end of January there were 370,000 heart patients waiting for elective care. What will be done to save those people’s lives?
Michelle Donelan
We are talking today about investing in the technologies that can progress our healthcare system and about our use of green technology so we can get to work in a cleaner, greener way. Our technologies can progress our society in so many different ways. I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss that in detail, but it might be more of a question for the Department of Health and Social Care.
That is why the Government’s commitment to AI goes much further than just warm words. Over five years ago, we identified AI as one of the four grand challenges in the industrial strategy, investing £1 billion in the AI sector deal in 2019. In 2021, we set out our ambitions in the national AI strategy—ambitions which the AI action plan shows we are determined to deliver. In the last decade, we have also invested over £2.5 billion in AI.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
On the Secretary of State’s new role in the new Department, one key thing we need to look at is keeping regulation updated with advancements. Already, things such as ChatGPT mean that people can get their homework done, generate images and make apps using a computer. Can we take the example of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, which learnt, through the vaccine, to do the research and put the regulation in place, so we do not find ourselves, with the Online Harms Bill, where we found 10 years ago when the internet was brought through? Is there an opportunity for her to put regulation in place to ensure we move it along as the technology develops?
Michelle Donelan
I absolutely agree. That is exactly why the Prime Minister announced, just days ago, the establishment of a large language model taskforce to look at that and to ensure we can gain sovereignty in this particular area. Over the coming weeks, we will also publish the AI White Paper.
Earlier this month, I announced £110 million for AI technology missions. That funding, which we anticipate will be matched by equal private investment, will support the science behind some of the most important AI technologies of the future. We will also realise some of AI’s transformative applications, from reducing greenhouse gas emissions to increasing productivity in sectors such as agriculture, construction and transport.
Success in AI requires the UK to be a hub of the best and brightest AI minds in the world. We have already backed AI with £8 million to bring top talent into the UK. That is coming on top of £117 million in existing funding to create hundreds of new PhDs in AI research. In the Budget, the Chancellor took a further step forward with the announcement of the Manchester prize, which will back those harnessing the immense power of AI to break new ground.
The Chancellor also announced a staggering £900 million in funding for an exascale super-computer and a dedicated AI research resource, making the UK one of only a handful of countries in the world to have such a powerful computing facility. We are creating thousands of high-quality jobs and ensuring that the UK is going to be the home of the Al technologies that will directly help to address the priorities of the British public. These are not just jobs that will power our future; every single job will create these exciting fields—opportunities that will release the potential of thousands of talented people up and down the country.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The Manchester-based physicist and Nobel prize winner Andre Geim has said that the top researchers around the world and in the UK are either not coming or looking to get out because living standards are so low; they can earn far better wages elsewhere. Does the Secretary of State not agree that all these aspirations, great though they are, will never be met so long as living standards in the UK fall well below those in other western European countries?
Michelle Donelan
I cannot believe the hon. Member is insisting on talking down our great nation. We are already attracting these people to our country. That is why we are third in the world when it comes to AI. That is why we are boosting that supply as well as growing our own talent.
The right skills, the right investment and the right infrastructure: these are the ingredients of a science and technology superpower, and perhaps nowhere is that more true than in our world-class research sector. In January, we launched the Advanced Research & Invention Agency, or ARIA—a new independent research body custom built to fund high-risk, high-reward scientific research, backed by £800 million in funding.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I am so pleased that the Secretary of State is placing great emphasis on AI. When I was a child growing up on a farm, AI stood for artificial insemination—a somewhat messier affair than what we know it as today.
Far from what the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) was saying about the standard of living in this country, many international investors do come to London because of the quality of life. The disincentive is that we do not reward risk enough and it is still too difficult to raise money on the London capital markets for some of these emerging industries. It is great that the Government are putting in seed funding, but we also need to make it much easier and more attractive for private business to put their money where their mouth is.
Michelle Donelan
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s latter point; obviously, when I was referring to AI, I was not talking about what he described to start with. We will continue to work across Government to ensure that we are attracting companies to locate in the UK and create British jobs.
With unique freedoms, ARIA will be able to empower extraordinary people who have a radical vision for a positive approach and positive change for our country. We are a nation of inventors—from the toaster to the television and from tarmac to teabags, we have never been short of good ideas. This rich history of invention and extraordinary research must, of course, be backed to ensure that it continues and that we continue to grow our economy.
As I have emphasised, it is vital that everyone, no matter where they live, has the opportunity to play their part in Britain’s innovation economy. That is why the Chancellor announced the creation of 12 investment zones, to supercharge growth in some of the most exciting areas of the economy, from digital and tech to life sciences and advanced manufacturing. The zones will be clustered around a university or research institution and bring growth to areas that have traditionally underperformed economically. Each new zone will be backed by £80 million of investment over five years.
We have also established the Innovation Accelerator programme, investing £110 million into 26 transformative R&D projects to accelerate the growth of three high-potential innovation clusters—from new health and medical technologies in Birmingham, to productivity-enhancing AI in Manchester and the development of quantum technologies for cleaner and more efficient manufacturing in Glasgow. By bringing universities, local leaders and businesses together, those projects will drive regional economic growth and provide a vital boost to the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
The Chancellor also rightly paid special attention to regulation in the Budget. Smarter, pro-innovation regulation will ensure that we continue to attract and grow the most promising start-ups and scale-ups. Once again, the Budget put the money where it counts. We announced £10 million of extra funding in the next two years for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, helping it to become the most innovative healthcare regulator in the world, to support our life sciences sector and our NHS—and most importantly, to save lives.
The Chancellor also accepted all nine recommendations of the Vallance review on regulating digital technologies, to ensure that we have a coherent, agile and flexible regulatory approach. We need to minimise undue burdens on businesses and grow the economy. That includes the creation of AI sandboxes, which will support the innovative regulatory approaches that we need to drive forward the responsible and safe development of artificial intelligence. We will take that forward in our forthcoming AI White Paper, which will set out our proportionate and pro-innovation approach to regulating AI—designed to make sure that the UK is the best place in the world to develop and deploy AI.
Finally, the Chancellor shares my view that international collaboration has a critical role to play in ensuring that Britain can continue to deliver world-leading research. We welcome the EU’s recent openness to discussions on Horizon association, following two years of unfortunate delay. On 14 March, just last week, I met Pedro Serrano, the EU’s ambassador to the UK, to discuss collaboration on science and research, including the Horizon Europe programme. The Government will continue to back our research community, which is why we have extended the Horizon guarantee and are clear that we will not let our researchers wait another two years for certainty.
This Government are unashamedly pro-growth and pro-business. Even after the corporation tax rise this April, we will have the lowest headline rate in the G7. Only 10% of companies will pay the full 25% rate. It is particularly vital that we support the businesses that are investing in research and development and bringing those science and technology benefits to the British public. That is why loss-making SMEs for which qualifying R&D expenditure constitutes at least 40% of total expenditure will now be able to claim a higher payable credit rate of 14.5% for qualifying R&D expenditure. Our life sciences and tech sectors are expected to be among some of the main beneficiaries of the changes, enabling those crucial companies to drive sustainable growth and jobs in the years to come.
This is not just about giving growth a short-term boost: we have a long-term plan for building an economy fit for the future. That is why the Chancellor also announced that the capital allowances super-deduction will be replaced with full expensing of capital allowances for three years, with a move to make that permanent as soon as possible. That will ensure that the UK’s capital allowances regime is world-leading, as the only major European economy to have such a policy.
Before I conclude, I pay tribute to the millions of people who work in our science, innovation and technology sectors, who are working to change our lives for the better every single day. Budgets are not about Government but about real people who have real families and real jobs that they have to think about. They are looking to this place today, and they want to see that we know what matters to them and are prepared to invest in the things that deliver on our country’s priorities. They want more time with their loved ones. They want to be able to travel safer, faster and cleaner than the generation before us. They want higher-quality jobs, stronger borders, and cleaner and greener towns and cities. These are the things that motivate us to become a science and technology superpower. It is not about status or achieving goals for their own sake, but about making British people happier, healthier, smarter and more prosperous. This is a Budget that puts those priorities at the heart of Government and delivers. I commend it to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I think we will start with a time limit of six minutes, and see how we go from there. In the meantime, I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to open the debate on science and technology, as one of the few Members in this place probably with a science degree. You might be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I studied chemistry at Somerville, like another well-known female politician very popular on the Government Benches. I hope that is where the similarities end, although we both have a reputation for, how shall I put it, getting our own way.
Science, technology and innovation are close to my heart. I welcome the new focus—not before time—on these issues, which I will come to. Even with the new Department and a few mentions in the Budget, we are still miles behind where we need to be in exploiting the potential of the UK as a science and tech superpower.
First, let me address the Budget overall. Having had a few days to digest and analyse, the verdict on the Budget is in. It is not a
“sustainable plan for long-term economic expansion”.
Those are not my words but those of The Daily Telegraph. The Federation of Small Businesses was no more complimentary, saying that its members would feel “short-changed” by the “meagre” Budget. The Institute for Fiscal Studies labelled Britain a high-tax economy, with households feeling “continuing pain”.
The public view is that it is a Budget not for them, but for a tiny few—a growing theme after 13 years in office. No wonder most now trust Labour over the Conservatives when it comes to the economy. That is the verdict, because this is a Budget divorced from most people’s reality—or as we have just heard, from anybody’s reality. There was no mention in the Chancellor’s speech that this Parliament is set to see the biggest fall in living standards ever recorded—the biggest fall by a country mile, according to the Resolution Foundation. That means families worse off and prices going through the roof, as wages fall through the floor.
New research for the BBC, out today, shows that the average British worker is now £11,000 a year worse off than they should be, after 13 years of a Conservative Government. That is the reality for most people. The reason for that cannot be passed off as global forces, as it is relative too—middle-income Britons are now 10% worse off than the French and 20% worse off than their German equivalents. When holidaying Brits return to the continent in force this summer, they will feel like the poor man of Europe once again. That is the record of this Government; no wonder they hardly mentioned it.
It was a Budget divorced from the realities of most businesses, too. Nothing for them on their unaffordable, rising costs; nothing on business rate reform; and very little to boost their immediate workforce challenges either. Small businesses were offered thin gruel. Perhaps that was what the former Prime Minister meant when he said something quite unparliamentary about business.
It was a Budget utterly divorced from the realities facing our public services too, with hardly even a mention of the NHS or care. Yet we have 7 million patients stuck on waiting lists, A&E waiting times at an all-time high, social care in crisis, putting extra pressure our hospitals, and a chronic workforce emergency.
Dr Luke Evans
Does the hon. Lady welcome the statement by the British Medical Association about the changes to pensions, which will get senior doctors back to work? The chair of the BMA pensions committee said in the media that the changes had the immediate effect of getting people back to work, which means the NHS workforce will be strengthened.
Lucy Powell
I will come on to say something about that, but as my husband is an A&E consultant I am all too familiar with these issues. As the IFS said, it was a golden
“sledgehammer to crack a very small nut”.
The realities facing our public services are not addressed in this Budget.
It is another Tory Budget so divorced from reality that it exposes, once again, who the party in government is really for—tax cuts for the wealthiest, tax hikes for the rest. The last Tory Budget had a cut to the 45p top rate of tax; this Budget has a pension tax cut for the top 1%. Government Members might groan and wail, but that is the reality.
Wealth managers already see the Budget as a bonanza, and not only a huge tax break for the super-wealthy but an inheritance tax wheeze for the super-rich too, with one wealth adviser describing it as
“a great opportunity for tax-free growth.”
Tim Loughton
The hon. Lady has been quoting experts and the newspapers. Will she now admit that the figures that her colleague, the shadow Chancellor, gave about the benefit that the pension changes will bring was grossly miscalculated? A quote that appeared in the Financial Times said it was
“based on a muddled understanding of how the pension tax rules operate”.
Will she apologise for the calculations in the Labour press release or are they just muddled?
Lucy Powell
I will not apologise for those figures, and in the next part of my speech I will explain that the figures are perhaps worse than previously thought. There are issues for doctors, but only 16% of those who will benefit from this massive boon are doctors, and that is before all the speculators dive into this new wheeze. That is the political choice that this Chancellor and this Government have made—trickle-down economics, and tax perks for the tiny few. That is the record that they just will not be able to dodge.
Lucy Powell
I will not give way again. Government Members have plenty of time to give speeches.
It is a Budget divorced from the reality of who caused this economic crisis. It was the Conservative party that crashed the economy, sending markets into freefall and interest rates sky high, resulting in a Tory mortgage penalty for millions of homeowners. The Government want to blame others, but their record is falling living standards, a stagnant economy, falling house prices and the worst growth forecast in the G7—all stats the Chancellor failed to mention.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The hon. Lady is very unhappy about this Government’s pension changes. Would a future Labour Government reverse them immediately?
Lucy Powell
We have already said that we will, but we will make sure that there is a fix for doctors who need it.
Let us move on to the realities in science, tech and innovation. Technology is moving at breakneck speed and changing the way we live, work and play in ways that we cannot even imagine yet. Not only can we search the entire world’s knowledge from devices in our back pockets or communicate with anyone anywhere at any time, but AI and computer programmes can increasingly perform roles better than humans. An AI bot could probably have written me a better speech than the one I have made today—perhaps the Secretary of State might want to look at that the next time she is giving a speech.
The choice facing countries, companies and citizens is either to harness those changes and keep up with them or to fall behind. That is why a huge global race is going on to develop and adopt the technologies of the future and seize the opportunities of the digital revolution. The UK has led industrial revolutions before, and we can lead this one. We have world-leading universities and research, a global appeal with the English language, and digitally savvy consumers. We have a competitive advantage in life sciences, professional and financial services, healthcare and creative industries, all helping to attract fintech and the best talent.
However, there are also some worrying signs. Our universities and research are not translating enough into commercial success for UK companies. We have a productivity problem because not enough of the economy is adopting the latest technologies. We have been slow to bring in digital regulation, so our world-leading position is being lost. Our public services could be cutting-edge and more efficient, but they have not seized the data and digital opportunities. Companies start up in the UK but do not scale up to compete in a global market: Arm’s recent decision to be listed in the US, not the UK, gave us yet more evidence of that. That is the story of Britain: we invented the silicon chip, but not silicon valley. That is why we need a Government who are up to the challenge of the tech revolution, not a slow-moving analogue Government divorced from the reality of what it takes to win the race.
The announcements in the Budget pale in comparison with some of our international competitors. The Government announced new money for AI research, but we are already lagging far behind Canada, the US, France, Italy and others. For context, the EU is looking at a £7 billion project to support computer innovation across Europe. Even when the Government’s new supercomputer to support AI is up and running, it will have capacity equivalent to only 10% of what a single American company already has today. That does not sound like winning the global race to me, although I do think the Government showed excellent judgment in choosing the name of the new AI research challenge—“Manchester”, for those who were not watching.
It is the same story with 5G infrastructure, which is so critical to the digital revolution: while the Government have invested £200 million in early-stage trials, Germany is investing billions and South Korea has already got a third of the country on 5G. The quantum strategy and funding are welcome, but Germany, which until recently was governed by a quantum chemist, invested the same amount over half the time and started two years ago, again putting Britain behind in the race.
It is not just about investment. The UK should be at the forefront of regulation around new technologies, making sure that we are the first to set the rules of the game and are helping to attract businesses looking for certainty and a supportive regulatory framework, so that it is our values shaping how new technology develops, rather than those choices being made in China or elsewhere. The mess over TikTok was just the latest example of the Government dragging their feet. We saw the same thing with Huawei: the Government failed to invest in our sovereign capabilities and then failed to predict the security concerns, resulting in a chaotic and expensive unpicking of Huawei’s role in our national infrastructure.
We now have a chance to get ahead of the curve in technologies and to help to secure our national resilience, so where is the regulation of digital markets that has been promised for years? Where is the semiconductor strategy? Where is the media Bill to protect and promote British broadcasters in the streaming age? Where is the commitment on Horizon? It is the elephant in the room. The ongoing uncertainty is costing collaboration opportunities, research projects and jobs across the country.
While the Budget featured at least nods in the direction of the most advanced companies and technologies—in which regard we are already doing relatively well—there was nothing at all to bring up the long tail and answer the UK’s great productivity challenge. No wonder growth forecasts were down. This is another case of trickle-down thinking and a Government divorced from what constitutes the real problem.
Technology should be a great leveller, but that will not happen by accident. We need to plan to ensure that the benefits of the digital economy are not concentrated only in London and the south-east, and that we take advantage of our great potential ingenuity and creativity in the rest of the UK. We need to boost tech adoption. We have one of the worst long tails of companies, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, that are not taking advantage of digitalisation and the latest technologies, and their productivity is suffering.
We need to harness data for the public good. Proposals in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill are nothing more than tinkering with the General Data Protection Regulation, while the huge potential for data to transform our public services, empower citizens and put the UK at the forefront of open data is being left on the table. We need serious action on skills so that young people are not just endangered by social media but have the entrepreneurial and creative skills that the AI economy will need, and the current workforce are not made redundant by robots but are able to secure the new jobs of the future. We need to boost our digital infrastructure so that everyone has fast, reliable and affordable connections and we are at the leading edge of industrial 5G and the next generation of connectivity.
It is Labour that is leading the way in tackling the big challenges that our country faces. Because of our ambitious plans for skills, start-ups, growth, industrial strategy, the digital economy and devolution, businesses are flocking to Labour. [Hon. Members: “No they’re not.”] Oh yes, they are. John Allan, the chairman of Tesco, said recently that Labour was
“the only team on the field”
when it came to growth. Kasim Kutay, of the life sciences firm Novo, says that Labour is the only party that has
“demonstrated an understanding of the challenges facing the UK”.
Apparently, however, it is not just business leaders who like Labour’s plans. We have proposed GB Energy, and the Conservatives have proposed GB Nuclear. We said “windfall tax”, and they said “energy profits levy”. We said, “We need a bold plan to fix childcare”, and they seemed to like that one too. Where Labour leads, the Conservatives follow. They do say, do they not, that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? But the truth is that the Conservatives are not up to the job. They are divorced from reality. They crashed the economy, they are responsible for the biggest fall in living standards that we have ever seen, and they are losing the global race for jobs of the future. They are out of road and out of ideas, so instead of pinching our ideas, why do they not just make way?
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is, as always, a pleasure to follow the Shadow Secretary of State, although I could not help noticing that she seemed to spend longer making general political points about the Budget than actually addressing issues relating to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says “So?” from a sedentary position, and she is perfectly entitled to do so—the Budget debate is a general debate during which Members can bring up topics relating to any subject, not just the one that is slated for the day—but I mention that because I think this is an area of Government activity in which the Government have an incredibly strong record over many years.
That is demonstrated by the fact that investors and businesses recognise the UK as a global hub—a leading centre in Europe and in the world. When we talk to tech investors working in hubs in Berlin or Barcelona or Tel Aviv, we hear that they regard London as the primary centre where they go to raise funds to grow and scale their businesses. As the Secretary of State said, we have the leading research institutions in the world: four of the world’s top 10 universities are based here. Our university clusters are driving innovation and growth in the sector, which is why we are so well regarded and respected. Our strategy for making the UK a world centre for tech and innovation is based on three key areas: driving growth in the economy, having a pro-competition strategy, and setting high standards.
When it comes to growth in the tech sector, we should look at investment not just in London and the south-east but across the UK, and at the way in which tech sectors have emerged and developed over the last decade. A good demonstration of that, as the shadow Secretary of State knows, is that we can jump on the Metro or the tram in Manchester and see the emergence of Salford Quays as one of Europe’s leading centres for creative industries and technology. When I was Chairman of the Select Committee, we visited Dundee. Dundee and Edinburgh are leading centres for the video games industry.
In Birmingham, within a stone’s throw of where the Birmingham hub for high-speed rail will be, we can see institutions such as Birmingham City University with its fantastic STEAMhouse centre for tech skills, where AI training courses are being delivered. That is over the road from the Greater Birmingham and Solihull Institute of Technology, a centre for advanced engineering, which is down the road from Fazeley Studios, which has become an important hub for the broadcasting and creative industries in Birmingham. Many of the buildings on those sites did not exist a decade ago, and the idea that this would be a major cluster for the tech sector and the broadcasting and creative industries was not something that people would have envisaged in 2010, but it is a reality today as a consequence of policies that have been put in place by this Government. That is why the Chancellor was right to recognise in the Budget the strategic significance of investment in research and development, and also in the strategic hubs and clusters of businesses that are so important for driving the sector.
The UK will be a leader in digital competition, and that is one of the reasons we need to support British businesses throughout their life cycle; not just in the R&D phase when they are growing, but when they seek to scale as well. If emerging businesses are to scale in tech marketplaces, we need to ensure that they can compete fairly alongside the tech giants whose services they rely on to reach their customers. Many app developers cannot reach their customers without using products and platforms designed by Meta. Most businesses require Amazon services either for cloud storage or for selling. Most businesses also require a good ranking on Google to reach their customers. They should be able to do so fairly. There are only two app store markets: Google and Apple. Those two monopolies exist alongside each other. Any developer needs to use those stores to reach customers, just as any customer needs to use them to access the products they want. It is important that customers and businesses are treated fairly, and the digital markets, competition and consumer Bill, which will come forward soon, will be vital to securing that.
Standards are one of the most important aspects of the UK’s leadership. One of the best examples of standards, certainly for AI, is the Online Safety Bill. It is world-leading legislation that will effectively cover the regulation of the AI-driven recommendation tools that drive the experience of social media. AI is an enabling technology. It draws on data to make recommendations and decisions on behalf of users to improve that user experience. However, like any other form of technology, it requires the right standards and safety regulations around it to ensure that it is delivering. New chat tools have been mentioned. AI-driven chat boxes are new in their technology, but the principles behind them are not new. We have also seen that with technologies such as autocomplete on Google, where online tools guess and make assumptions about what people want to see or what responses they want. We need to ensure that they are making sensible, reasonable recommendations and not directing people towards harmful content or hate speech, or driving people into isolated groups and communities.
There need to be standards that underpin the way that AI works and the recommendations it makes to users who engage with those tools. That is why the Government were right to recommend and support the creation of a UK AI sandbox, where companies can trial, and demonstrate trials of, new technologies before they are rolled out. This is common and standard in most other industries. The European Union is developing an AI sandbox, and it is right that we should do the same here. It is also right that we should build on the work of AI standards being developed at the Alan Turing Institute, to set a standards-based framework for the applications of AI in the future.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I cannot remember ever speaking in a Budget debate dedicated entirely to science, so it is a real pleasure. Like the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), I have a science degree, although mine is of a different flavour, being in physics. It is nice to speak in this debate as the SNP spokesperson.
A flourishing research and development landscape will produce major economic benefits, so the focus on science should be a positive. The problem is that this Government are not creating an environment conducive to flourishing research and development. First and foremost, they have to convince those working in the sector that they are valued. They have to consider the push and pull factors for a career in science. The Secretary of State talked about financially stable families, but she has to recognise that the wages and job insecurity mean that many cannot afford to stay in the sector, so they leave for other occupations.
I will now digress a little. A number of years ago, I visited a hydroelectric museum in the Alps. It is more than 150 years since we started developing hydroelectric as a means of generating electricity. The museum had an interesting display that said hydroelectric power would have been developed to a far greater extent if not for the discovery of oil. We saw oil stifling innovation, particularly in renewable sources, 150 years ago, and now we have the nuclear revival.
Rather than investing properly in renewable technologies, this Government are happy to throw billions at what they consider to be an easy source of energy. Proper action on decarbonisation would mean revising grid connection charges that see Scottish renewable producers paying, on average, £7.36 per megawatt-hour to access the grid, whereas producers in England pay, on average, 49p per megawatt-hour. Worse still, producers in Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg pay absolutely nothing. The Budget was an opportunity to address this inequality, to encourage greater energy innovation and, ultimately, to lower energy bills for my constituents and for constituents across the UK. Instead, we are repeating the mistakes of the past by taking the easy but expensive and environmentally unfriendly route.
Nuclear is environmentally unfriendly. The mining of uranium is a dirty process, as a lot of acid is used to extract it from rocks. There is then the storage of used fuel rods. For the Government to classify nuclear power as environmentally sustainable, with the same investment incentives as renewable energy, is a sinister attempt to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, and it shows a lack of real commitment to renewables.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on photonics and quantum, I am pleased to see a continued focus on quantum technologies. The creation of the quantum hubs in 2014, to which the Secretary of State referred, enabled the UK to place itself at the centre of this technology, and a number of Scottish universities—notably, Glasgow, Strathclyde, Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt—played a key role. But the sector requires sustained support and proper vision.
I was recently made aware of an ambitious proposal made by a group at Glasgow University, in collaboration with universities across the UK, to secure commercial leadership in the manufacturing of quantum hardware, which is crucial for its penetration into volume applications. A national institute for quantum integration would deliver nano-fabrication facilities for the integration of this hardware. The Secretary of State said, in her statement two weeks ago on the science and technology framework, that she will have
“a ruthlessly outcome-focused approach to this new Department.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 182.]
I would love to hear her thoughts on a national institute for quantum integration absolutely focused on outcomes.
With quantum, as with other technologies that are critical to national security, the issue is rarely starting up; it is almost always scaling up. There does not seem to be much commitment at all to supporting the scaling up of small and medium-sized enterprises. To scale up, some companies will potentially need to move out, which means that some are looking to other places around the world in order to develop their technologies. Of course, we are still waiting for the semiconductor strategy, something that would support the development of quantum, photonics and the wider technology sectors. Perhaps the Secretary of State will prioritise that.
It was disappointing to hear, yet again, that investment in carbon capture and storage is not coming to the Scottish Acorn project. We need such clusters across the UK, in every part of it. The Acorn project is perfectly situated and the proposals are mature enough to merit Government funding; this should not be a phase 2, with something in the future, perhaps, if we are lucky.
Carol Monaghan
That would be substantial if it were coming to Scotland, so when will we see action on the Scottish cluster?
The Chancellor also made a song and dance last week about R&D tax credits. That system has been grossly mismanaged and therefore abused in the past. I would like more detail on how the new system will provide more value for money for both taxpayers and genuine researchers. How will it be managed? What checks and balances will be taking place? We need to make sure, once again, that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
The ambitions of the Secretary of State, and indeed the Prime Minister, in science are laudable. However, they fail to mention the key issue: the people. That issue cannot be solved by cash alone. Supposed commitments to science clash entirely with this Government’s hostile environment on immigration, and the lack of progress on association to Horizon is having a huge impact. While the Secretary of State dithers about whether association represents value for money, researchers are leaving the UK for better opportunities abroad, where they can develop rich collaborations and enjoy freedom of movement.
In response to last week’s Budget, Sir Adrian Smith, president of the Royal Society, said:
“After a prolonged period of uncertainty, the Government urgently needs to deliver on its pledge to associate to Horizon Europe, and set out a longer-term, cross-party plan for science. This is vital to restore confidence among global research talent and investors that they should build their futures in the UK.”
Stephen Phipson, the 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”.
A number of other notable organisations in the UK —including the CBI, the British Heart Foundation, the Russell Group, the University Alliance and Cancer Research UK—and in EU R&D sectors have signed a joint statement to the UK Government, urging rapid progress on association to EU programmes, including Horizon Europe, Copernicus and Euratom.
However, there were worrying reports last week that the Prime Minister is unconvinced on Horizon, with the Financial Times reporting that “senior colleagues” said the Prime Minister was “sceptical” about the value of Horizon Europe and the cost of participation. Researchers need to know where the UK is headed. Is the dithering on Horizon a deliberate attempt to kick the can down the road? More than anything, Horizon is about people; there is no monetary replacement for this. So will this Government keep blaming the EU while projects and collaborations are lost?
However, there are areas where money is important and where I would have wanted to see action in the Budget. We heard from the Secretary of State about financially stable families. Let us assume that I am a quantum researcher from somewhere in the EU, I am at the top of my field and I have an invitation to join a team at one of the UK quantum hubs. I will, first, have to apply for my global talent visa, at a cost of £623, and that will also cost me £623 for my spouse and for each of my children. I have two children under 18, so my costs are now £2,492. I have to pay the annual health surcharge for myself, my spouse and my children, so that is £624 for myself and my spouse. There is great news, as children get a discount and so it is only £470 for each of them. We are now at £4,680 for me to come here under the global talent scheme, although that assumes that I have only two children—I know the Government like to pretend that people do not have any more than two children, but many of us do.
As an EU researcher, I have many options, so why would I put myself through the hassle of such an immigration regime? That is hardly how we attract the brightest and best. If the Government are serious about science, those fees have to be dropped. It would not be costly and it would have great benefits.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making excellent points about the cost involved in people coming to our city to work and share their talents. Is she as concerned as I am about stories from constituents of mine who have been here already and have been asked to take on a job with a promotion, but who have almost lost that opportunity because of Home Office delays?
Carol Monaghan
I do share those concerns. I have heard stories about individuals who were invited here and who were hoping to come, but the delays meant that that opportunity was lost. These people have been asked to come to the UK because of their particular skills. We are losing talent time and again.
While we are at it, international students seem to be a target again. The return of the post-study work visa took a lot of effort on the part of Members—from both sides of the House, it has to be said—but there is now news that the Home Secretary is talking about cutting it again. Many people who work in science first came here as international students and on the promise of a post-study work visa. There must be no change to the current system.
A commitment to research and development means a commitment to people, to international collaboration and to developing an immigration environment that supports companies, research groups and individuals to contribute. Ultimately, if that cannot happen in the UK, the powers should be given to Scotland. We will develop an immigration system that works for our science sector.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I support the Budget. More importantly, the markets seem to support it as well. Stability and balance are the hallmarks of what the Chancellor has achieved, and I congratulate him on that.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Tim Loughton
If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, so many other people want to speak that it would be unfair if I took interventions.
With six minutes, and with a Budget containing so many measures, it is difficult to know what to speak about, but I want to speak briefly about children, the environment and booze—not necessarily at the same time. I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s opening remarks and her concentration on the importance of AI. Even though some of us may not fully understand all of its implications, it is absolutely where we need to grow our economy.
The £20 billion of investment in carbon capture is huge and vital. It is a vital component of our target to get to net zero. We cannot get everything not to release carbon, but we can have ways of mitigating emissions to bring us to our net zero target—hopefully sooner than 2050. It is slightly churlish of the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), who spoke for the SNP, to say that if something is not in Scotland it does not really count. Climate change is no respecter of any border, let alone that between England and Scotland.
I absolutely welcome the Budget’s huge implications for investment in R&D, which is really important. I also absolutely welcome the freezing of fuel duty for the 13th year in a row, which will mean £200 to the average driver.
There are lots of little things in the Budget that will have a big impact, such as the help for swimming pools and leisure centres, which were hit badly during the pandemic and have now been hit by energy costs. That will be a lifeline and it will help the health of our constituents. The measure on energy prepayment meters was long overdue; it was absurd and immoral that those least able to pay should be penalised and pay that much more for using prepayment meters. Thirty million pounds has been allocated for additional veterans’ services, and there is £10 million to help with suicide prevention—a hidden illness that has a huge impact on many of our constituents and their families.
If I may talk briefly about children, I remain concerned —as I would, being a former children’s Minister—that all the emphasis has been on adult social care and not enough has been on children’s social care, where it is estimated there is still a shortfall of some £1.6 billion. We need to do something about that, because over 80% of our interventions on children in the care system and those coming into the care system are late interventions rather than preventive early interventions, which is a big change from what went on some years before.
We need to invest in our social worker workforce. This afternoon, I have been hosting the Social Worker of the Year awards, and some of the most remarkable social workers from around the country have been to Parliament to receive their awards. They are the fourth emergency service and we need much better workforce planning, as we do in the NHS, to make sure that we not only recruit more social workers, but keep them. It is a false economy not to be doing that.
I welcome the many good measures on children, particularly on children in care, but will the Chancellor consider what we can do to provide free bus travel for all care leavers aged between 18 and 25, for whom the cost of a bus fare to get to work or education is prohibitive? Will he also consider a national programme to allow care leavers to access a rent deposit as part of their benefits, since they find it harder than many to access accommodation?
On childcare, which was one of the most significant parts of the Budget, I absolutely support the measures that were announced. As Coram Family and Childcare puts it,
“the introduction of 30 hours childcare for children from 9 months old to three years old…will make a huge difference for families currently struggling with high costs”.
I welcome that, but there are question marks around sufficiency and shortages in the childcare available; currently only half of local authorities have sufficient childcare for children aged under two and less than half have enough childcare for parents working full time. With these generous measures on childcare, there is more we need to do to make sure that people with the appropriate skills are there to provide it.
I welcome the wraparound childcare available through schools from 8 am to 6 pm, which will make a real difference to parents’ ability to go to jobs and make a meaningful contribution. However, there is a problem in that only 25% of local authorities have enough after-school childcare for children aged five to 11 and the figure is even lower for those aged 12 to 14. Again, there are serious question marks about capacity, which I am sure the Chancellor will answer.
There is more I could say about children but, turning to the environment, insulating homes reduces energy waste and keeps people warmer, while lowering bills permanently. We need further public investment in insulating fuel-poor homes, and we need to create new tax incentives for owner-occupiers to do more to improve the energy efficiency of their homes—as is the case in other European countries, where it is reflected in council tax banding and other up-front fees.
Finally, on beer, the Chancellor’s measures to ensure that tax on draught beer sold in pubs does not increase are great and will save the sector around £70 million a year. However, the British Beer and Pub Association, which is already seeing its members hit by an energy crisis and the weight of debt build-up over years, says that there is a 10% increase in the duty on non-draught beers—60% of all beer sales. Can we aim for a level playing field for our beer and pub industry, which has been particularly hit during the energy crisis and the pandemic? What is in the Budget is really good, but we could do a little bit more.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate today, but, while I do not wish to be unkind, it was a little less of a pleasure to listen to the Secretary of State open the debate. I notice that she is leaving the Chamber. Listening to her assertions about economic growth and the record of this Government, I had to wonder what planet she was on.
The reality is that, despite the assertions made from the Dispatch Box by the Secretary of State today and the Chancellor last week, the OBR has downgraded the UK’s long-term growth forecasts, with downgrades in all of the last three years of the forecast period. The OECD has confirmed that we will be the weakest economy in the G7 this year, no other G20 economy other than Russia is forecast to shrink this year, and our economy is still smaller than it was prior to the pandemic.
All that has a huge impact on the finances of families in Birmingham, Ladywood and all over the country. The hit to living standards over the past two years is the largest since comparable records began. Wages are lower in real terms than 13 years ago and real weekly wages are expected to remain below their 2008 levels until at least 2026. I believe that a little more humility was needed at the Dispatch Box today, because the measures taken by this Government over the past 13 years—in particular since the so-called kamikaze Budget last November—have car-crashed the finances of families and households all over our country, with no end in sight.
Given how deeply the cost of living crisis is hitting families all over our country and given the headline rates of economic growth, it is shocking that the only permanent tax cut the Government announced was the £1 billion tax cut for the richest 1% of earners. The pension changes announced by the Chancellor last week mean that for higher earners with a pension pot of £2 million, that tax cut is worth almost £250,000.
That measure is supposed to be about getting people back to work—older doctors in particular. Labour agrees that targeted measures are needed to deal with the NHS crisis and to make sure that doctors are not leaving the profession in the numbers they currently are, but the way the Government have gone about making these changes will cost them £70,000 for every single person returning to the labour market—and that is if the Government even manage to hit the number of people they say will return to the labour market as a result. There have been warnings, including from a former Pensions Minister in the coalition Government, that some people will retire early as a result of those measures, so in fact some people will now leave the labour market who were not originally planning on it.
Labour’s priority would have been to take targeted measures to help doctors, given the acute crisis in the NHS labour market, not the golden
“sledgehammer to crack a very small nut”,
as the IFS calls it, announced by this Government. It is the wrong priority at the wrong time.
The burden of tax must be shared fairly; making a permanent tax change that benefits the 1% with the biggest pension pots is unfair and wrong and, in government, we will reverse it. I also wonder why the Government are still leaving more than £10 billion on the table with the windfall tax. If they closed down the holes and had a proper windfall tax, we could bring in billions of pounds more, which could help ordinary families if that money was put towards easing the pressure of the cost of living crisis.
We heard a lot about the people’s priorities from the Dispatch Box today. The people’s priorities are easing the cost of living crisis and measures that pay for that easing by asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay more and those profiting from the war in Ukraine to give that money back to the taxpayer so that we can help families in our countries. That is what was needed and that is what the Government have singularly failed to deliver.
If I may say something about the west midlands, I noted with interest the trailblazer devolution deals announced for both the Greater Manchester area and the West Midlands Combined Authority. That particular deal is welcome, although I worry about the very asymmetric way the Government have approached devolution in our country. We need a nationwide approach to an economic devolution settlement that has some coherence to it, not a “Hunger Games”-style system where areas fight it out over relatively small pots of money, while other areas that are already a little further ahead get more powers and more money. While the deal is welcome to west midlands MPs such as myself, I do not think it is an approach that helps people all over our country.
While I very much hope that both that deal and the levelling-up zone in the East Birmingham-North Solihull corridor are a success, they must ultimately be judged by whether they turn around the deep-scarring problem of high unemployment in Birmingham, which in the last decade or so has shown no signs of coming down. My constituency has the highest rate of unemployment in the country; Birmingham, Perry Barr is second, Birmingham, Hodge Hill is third, Birmingham, Erdington is fourth, Birmingham, Hall Green is sixth, Birmingham, Yardley is ninth and Birmingham, Northfield is 13th. The trailblazer deal, with all the powers within it and the greater financial devolution it entails, has to result in a step change. It must be a game changer on unemployment rates across Birmingham and the wider west midlands area if it is to be judged a success.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Like two of the previous speakers, I am also a science graduate, although I do not compare myself with the Conservative party’s most famous science graduate. I had intended to make my speech essentially about science and technology, because they are massively important and, as the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) pointed out, we have fantastic competitive advantages in those fields. That will be a major part of growth.
Since last Tuesday, however, dramatic events have unfolded in the banking sector—particularly over the weekend. Back in 2009-10, the then Chair of the Treasury Committee, Lord McFall, asked me to chair the Future of Banking Commission. The last week has, unfortunately, brought back some memories. One of the characteristic problems of the banking sector is its short memory, particularly when it is Wall Street that we are talking about. I hope that the House will indulge me if I remind it of the lessons of the major banking crashes of the past half century.
Back in 1933, after the great depression, the Americans passed the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated banks out into risky investment banks and straightforward commercial banks. That gave us about seven decades of stability until 1999, when President Clinton—under pressure from unwise and greedy Wall Street lobbyists—essentially removed Glass-Steagall. What followed was the collapse of several banks, including Lehman Brothers—probably precipitated by the new mark-to-market rules—in the great crisis that we saw in 2008.
In 2009, because of the crash, America passed Dodd-Frank, which required banks with more than $50 billion in assets to be subject to tight regulation. Again, under pressure from Wall Street, President Trump relaxed those regulations in 2019. I talk about Wall Street, but the whole world followed. Of course, after that relaxation, banks assumed that they had an infinite period of low interest rates and that they could borrow ad nauseam. When global interest rates sharply increased by three, four or five times, the shock destabilised a number of those banks. One such bank was Silicon Valley Bank, which had been taken out of regulation by the Trump changes.
There is a lesson for us in all that. It has caused an instability in the financial system. Chancellors, central bank governors, financial secretaries in the States and regulators have no chance but to claim that the system is robust. I am not so sure. We will not know for a while whether it is actually robust, because of the complexity of the system. Of the three major banks that have failed so far, each has failed for different reasons, and we have no clear insight into what risks other banks have taken, partly because of the deregulation under Trump and his predecessors. In that respect, we in this country are probably in a better place than either the Americans or the Europeans, but I am keeping my fingers crossed as I say that so as not to tempt fate.
There is one lesson that we should learn. A big issue on which the world is hanging at the moment is whether the takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS is a success. I draw people’s minds back to Lloyds taking over HBOS, which was done under pressure from the Government of the day—from Gordon Brown—and Lloyds itself nearly collapsing the very next year. I hope that UBS will not do the same. The point of this story is that we are in a period of extraordinary global financial instability.
I am a low-tax Tory—I would have loved the Chancellor to have had a lower-tax strategy—but I have to say that the events of the past week have demonstrated that a very small-c conservative strategy is wise under these circumstances. The more confident the markets in the Government, the better our prospects for the future. That said, I would be completely unsurprised if we had to have another Budget in the autumn owing to the nature of the transitions and changes that are now happening.
If that happens, I would ask the Chancellor, “Could you please look again at bringing back your super-deduction?” That will attract investment here in a way that will not happen with the 25% rate. I would ask, “Will you look at doing away with IR35 and at other concerns that will improve prospects for small businesses?” In my view, it will be incredibly difficult for the banks to get right the balance between inflation and growth now that their hands are tied by the instability of the banking sector. My one line to the Chancellor is this: please look, for the next Budget, at much more growth.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We are in the middle of a debate, so I hope that it is a good one.
Tim Loughton
Given my references to children in care, I forgot, in my haste, to declare my interest as chairman of a safeguarding board.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That counts; fair enough. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I think it is fair to say that there are few surprises in the Budget. Many of the announcements were expected, and quite a few of them were borrowed from the Labour party, but a significant rabbit was pulled out of the hat—and it was a really big one. It was announced that there will be a £1 billion tax cut for the richest 1% through changes to tax allowances. Someone with a £2 million pension pot will now get a tax cut of more than a quarter of a million pounds when they take their tax-free lump sum. Moreover, there will be no limit on how much the rich can put into their pension pots tax-free. That is not all: they will be able to pass that on to their heirs tax-free through the creation of a local inheritance law.
I am told that a competition is now under way in my Caerphilly constituency to find out whether anyone at all will benefit from those tax allowance changes. The odds are that not one single individual there will. The justification for that generous tax cut is that it will encourage people into work. Frankly, it is unlikely that that will happen judging by the reaction from a large number of commentators. As has already been said in the debate, if the measure is aimed specifically at doctors, why not have a proposal that is tailor-made for them?
If the Government really want to get people into work, I urge them to tackle economic inactivity effectively. Figures in the 2021 census indicated that of the 10 local authority areas in Wales and England with the highest levels of economic inactivity, five were in the south Wales valleys—because individuals are sick or disabled. Blaenau Gwent has the highest proportion—36.1%—of working-age residents who are economically inactive. Then, there is Merthyr Tydfil and the Caerphilly County Borough Council area, where the figure stands at 34%. The legacy of coalmining and heavy industry generally has much to answer for, but it is fair to say that in those areas there is a chronic lack of well-paid jobs and chronic ill health. The responsibility for that situation lies squarely with central Government.
Unfortunately, the measures in the Budget will do little, if anything at all, to tackle those issues. What they will do is make the rich richer and reinforce the trends that we have seen over the last 13 years. It is worth pointing out, though, that, if anything, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing. There were 147 billionaires in this country in 2020, for example; now, there are 177. At the same time, as the OBR has confirmed, there has been a huge fall in living standards over the last two years—the worst figures since comparable records began.
The crisis in living standards has had a hugely negative impact on my constituents. Like so many people across the country, my constituents are facing huge levels of inflation, as well as significant increases in their energy bills. The real hardship is manifested in a host of different ways, but I will cite just one for the moment: food banks.
Citizens Advice has recorded that between April and September 2020, 23,905 emergency food parcels were distributed in south-east Wales alone, which includes my Caerphilly constituency, and that 34% of those who accessed Citizens Advice and requested a food bank parcel were in work but facing real financial difficulties. This is in-work poverty. Unfortunately, the Government are doing little about it.
My local authority, Caerphilly County Borough Council, through its “Newsline”, is giving clear advice to people on how to claim the benefits they are entitled to and how to relieve the suffering they are going through. For many people, this Budget offers little at all, if anything. My conclusion is unavoidable and straightforward: we need a Labour Government who put people first, and we need that Government as soon as humanly possible.
Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)
I rise in support of the Chancellor’s spring Budget and today’s debate, focused on technology and science. On this topic, I am delighted to represent a constituency that offers huge potential to help us harness British ingenuity and make us a science and technology superpower. This Budget takes important steps towards achieving that goal, and my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter in the heart of the north midlands manufacturing corridor is key to unlocking the vital growth that this country needs. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In Staffordshire, we have world-class businesses along the corridor driving the hydrogen technology revolution, including JCB in my constituency. We also have Toyota, Alstom and Rolls-Royce nearby. These technologies will play a vital role in contributing to our net-zero goals and advancing our manufacturing industries. The recent announcement that JCB has become the first construction equipment company to develop a fully working hydrogen internal combustion engine is a fantastic development that has the potential to transform the way we power heavy machinery, but these companies, and others along the corridor, want to do more. There is so much potential ready to be unlocked, but the infrastructure to support these industries is not matching the pace of their technological breakthroughs.
The Chancellor and Government colleagues have heard me banging on about my role as project champion for the north midlands manufacturing corridor and the importance of upgrading the A50/A500, and I make no apology for that. Delays along the A50/A500 corridor are costing the economy £8 million each year. Without improvements, increasing congestion could threaten growth and hold back investment. The Government, as they strive for growth in these sectors, need to upgrade this vital corridor as a priority. These improvements could create more than 12,000 jobs, generate £12 million for the economy and further solidify the UK as a global leader in the development of hydrogen technology.
I urge the Chancellor to look at the work of Staffordshire County Council, Midlands Connect and the Midlands Engine in supporting the creation of a hydrogen technologies valley investment zone in Staffordshire around this vital corridor. Major investment will enable the area to be a centre for innovation, design, manufacturing and the export of hydrogen products. This investment in Staffordshire—in Burton, Uttoxeter and surrounding areas—will mean economic growth, job creation and improved transport links, allowing these businesses to keep showing why they are world-class and helping establish us as a science and technology superpower. I fully support the Chancellor’s Budget. It is only by embracing innovation and investing in our future that we can build a stronger, more prosperous Britain for generations to come.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
This was a business-as-usual Budget, but after 13 years of economic failure, what my constituents desperately need is change. In the north-east of England, wages in real terms are on average 3% lower today than when Labour left office in 2010. I would like the House to think about that for a moment. Over 13 years of Conservative Government, my constituents have got poorer. Politicians are often asked if we know the price of a loaf of bread, so let me take that as an example. In May 2010, it was £1.16. In January this year, it was £1.39, a rise of 20%. How about a pint of milk? In May 2010, it cost 44p. In January this year, it was 69p, a rise of 57%. Prices have gone up, and wages have not kept pace.
Last Friday, I visited Atkinson Road Primary Academy in my constituency and heard from the absolutely wonderful students there. Over their entire lives, they have seen their parents, their aunts, their uncles, their brothers and their sisters all getting poorer. There are Conservative Members of Parliament representing seats in the north-east, and I ask them this: did they set out to make people poorer, or did it just happen through incompetence and arrogance?
It did not have to be this way. If the Conservatives had mirrored Labour’s rate of growth, workers in the north-east would be £11,000 a year richer. What a difference that would make. We would not have half the children of Newcastle growing up in poverty and we would not have 100,000 people in the north-east forced to use food banks. Tory MPs and Government Ministers are offering the public budgeting advice when they have constructed an economy where the majority of people do not benefit from the wealth that innovation creates.
In addition to lower wages, £300 million-worth of cuts to Newcastle City Council mean our city has poorer public services. On Newcastle’s streets, lone women are left stranded at 11 pm because we have lost 15% of our region’s bus services in a single year. Of those buses we have left, just a fifth turn up on time. Businesses cannot open, because their workforce are delayed on different bus services. Across the board, and across our country, people are paying more for shoddy services. Regulated train fares have seen the highest increase since 2013 and, with the scrapping of HS2’s eastern leg, northern communities are paying the price for broken Tory promises. More than 7 million people are waiting for NHS treatment, often in pain and discomfort. Do not even think about trying to get an NHS dental appointment. In December, the north-east saw the longest wait times for accident and emergency, at four hours. The longer the Conservatives are in power, the longer people wait.
In a statement last week, the Chancellor tried to claim that inflation was the root cause of strikes. Perhaps he forgot that it was his party, and this Government, who crashed the economy and left working people to pay for their mess. This Budget was a chance for the Government to unlock Britain’s promise and potential—a chance to reverse 13 years of low growth, low productivity and low wages, and a chance to spread and deliver opportunities to people in Newcastle Central. What did we get? Just a handout for the richest 1% and their pension pots.
The Chancellor likes to talk about making the UK a science superpower, yet he failed to mention Horizon Europe in the Budget. At €90 billion, it is the world’s largest science funding programme, but his Government have left our scientists out of it. At the same time, research and development tax credit policy is changing almost as fast as Chancellors, but with even less preparation. The Chancellor gave back only a fraction of the £4.5 billion he took from innovative small and medium enterprises in the autumn statement. The Federation of Small Businesses has, in its own words, been “left feeling mystified” by the changes.
The great businesses of Newcastle Central deserve a Government they can partner with to deliver jobs, growth and innovation. Fantastic life sciences start-ups and scale-ups, such as AMLo Biosciences, LightOx and NunaBio, and long-established innovative manufacturers, such as Spincraft, all deserve better. Labour will secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 through our long-term industrial strategy. A Labour Government will unleash the potential of the north-east. This Government just starve it.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
I remind the Chamber of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For 22 years before coming to this place, I was the managing director and chairman of a food processing company. I am also a qualified transport manager, and I remain the equal largest shareholder in that company.
First, I want to highlight an aspect of the Budget that is of particular interest to my constituency of North West Leicestershire, which is fuel duty. The level of fuel duty is of immense importance to my constituents, given two facts: the first is that public transport is extremely limited—in fact, my constituency does not have access to any main line railway station, or any railway station at all. The second is that, since North West Leicestershire is the centre of the population of the UK, with good communication links with the M42 and the M1, a third of all jobs in North West Leicestershire are in distribution or are logistics-related. As such, the freeze on fuel duty that was first put in place in 2011 has been extremely significant to the huge economic growth we have seen in North West Leicestershire.
To think tanks such as the Social Market Foundation that complain that the Treasury has forgone money to benefit the rich, I say, “Why do you think we should penalise my constituents who have to use a car to get to work?” The fuel duty freeze is the right thing to do to maintain economic growth, and my constituents will certainly support it—and not just my constituents. We already have 1.2 jobs for everyone of working age in North West Leicestershire, so a lot of people have to travel in from surrounding constituencies to work in my constituency. I am sure those people will be very grateful for the tax freeze as well.
With regard to the lack of a railway station, I cannot help but give a push for the reopening of the Ivanhoe line, which Network Rail said would be the most beneficial reopening of a railway line that it currently has on the books. That line would link the great town of Burton upon Trent with Leicester, and would pass through North West Leicestershire and South Derbyshire, benefiting all of our constituents. It has cross-party support, including from the Members from Leicester.
Turning to energy and science, I would like to mention an energy source that I have been promoting for some time, which is small modular nuclear reactors. Only in November last year, I said to the Secretary of State that renewables cannot be relied on to provide all our energy needs, due to their intermittent nature. It is clear that we need to add more reliable baseload capacity, and nuclear is the favourite for that. Hundreds of my constituents work at Rolls-Royce, and many of them work on the development of small modular reactors. Therefore, I very much welcome the announcement in the Budget of a competition through Great British Nuclear to build small modular reactors in the UK, and the inclusion of nuclear energy in the green zero carbon taxonomy. I am sure that my skilled worker constituents at Rolls-Royce in Derby will step up to the mark, and that we will see reliable baseload energy produced from that source sooner, rather than later.
Next, I turn to investment zones, and I note that the Treasury has identified the proposed east midlands mayoral combined county authority to deliver that policy. I feel that I have to point out that the ongoing issue we have in Leicestershire, and indeed in Leicester, is the veto being exercised by the current Mayor of Leicester, which is preventing Leicester and Leicestershire from joining that authority and creating that critical mass in the east midlands. That has particular relevance to the topic of the debate, as Leicester is home to the National Space Centre and has many space and science-related companies around it. Indeed, my own constituency of North West Leicestershire is home to a space company in the form of Zeeko, which makes ultra-precision polishing solutions for the optics for satellite cameras. Quite honestly, it would be an outrage if our county and the city of Leicester were to miss out on an opportunity to be involved in this situation because of the intransigence of the city Mayor. I wish all those in the city seeking to abolish the mayoralty very well in the May elections.
Energy security and scientific innovation are key to the future of the UK’s economy and stimulating economic growth. There are many measures in this Budget that will help us to maintain and improve our place in the world when it comes to science, and this Government have demonstrated their commitment to that goal. In the area of energy and security, this Government are being realistic, and it is clear that nuclear has a significant part to play in achieving that goal in the future. Picking up on some points that have been made by the Opposition, I would add that the relationship between business and our excellent research establishments—our universities—has certainly improved, but more progress needs to be made. If we could harness all the innovations in research that we have at our great universities, we would be really accelerating our economic growth. We must work towards that endlessly.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a sign that God is shining on the House to see you back in the Chair—healthy and feisty as ever, I am sure. You will recall that, when I joined the House in May 2015, Conservative Members would regularly cheer the Chancellor and various Front-Bench Ministers when they uttered the words “long-term economic plan”. That was the No. 1 talking point of the Cameron Government, but of course, as we have seen since that Government left office, the Conservative party had no such thing. Indeed, it is somewhat telling that, in last week’s Budget, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box, content to let the applause wash over him because
“the UK will not now enter a technical recession this year.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 833.]
Such is the mess that the Conservative party has created that it is managing to celebrate a slightly lower level of decline for the economy.
The Chancellor’s myopia is what worries me most, because he stood at the Dispatch Box like a sailor patching a leaky tap, not quite matching the moment in the way that one would expect from Britain’s Finance Minister. By stark contrast, the United States steams ahead with almost $400 billion of green subsidies to rewire its economy for the 21st century in the shape of the Inflation Reduction Act. The short-sightedness of this year’s Budget has instead condemned the United Kingdom to another year of falling living standards and slow economic decay. Closer to home, the European Union also announced bold and strategic plans in the shape of the Net Zero Industry Act, which will similarly mobilise billions and billions of euros to reshape the economy of the world’s largest single market so that it can produce at least 40% of the technology it needs in order to achieve its own climate and energy targets. While two of the world’s major economic powers set out plans to meet the moment, this Government instead celebrate—I quote again—that
“the UK will not now enter a technical recession this year.”
Rather than championing a bold economic plan to improve living and working conditions, the Chancellor—clearly unable to meet the moment—settled for tax breaks for research and development, urging us to cheer on his efforts to turn the UK into a life science superpower. While that aim is entirely laudable, and one that every single Member of the House could undoubtedly sign up to, the Chancellor needs to engage with the reality here in this country. As I mentioned earlier, the gulf between ambition and reality was summed up by the Manchester-based Nobel prize winner Andre Geim when he said that the reason that researchers are not staying in the UK or being attracted to the UK is the low living standards here. They can come here and suffer higher costs and lower salaries, or go elsewhere for better opportunities.
That neatly sums up the running theme of this Conservative Government, who seem oblivious to the fact that firms and institutions are made up of human beings—human beings who need modern public services, a healthy public realm, and a Government who can offer them the prospect of a bright future. What the reality looks like has been mentioned in this debate: to quote Torsten Bell from the Resolution Foundation,
“the worst parliament on record for living standards. By a country mile.”
The numbers were laid bare in today’s Financial Times. The Office for Budget Responsibility is predicting that UK households’ real income per person will still be below pre-pandemic levels in 2027-28, meaning hardly any improvement in living standards for the better part of 20 years. Jumana Saleheen, the chief economist at Vanguard Europe, has said that, on three key measures of living standards—household income, gross domestic product per capita, and real wages—
“we’ve seen stagnation over the last 15 years.”
According to the Office for National Statistics, average UK real household income is broadly unchanged since 2007. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said:
“We are in the middle of a decade in which incomes are barely rising at all, with very feeble growth for two…decades.”
UK wages adjusted for inflation increased by 23% in the eight years to 2008, but fell by 5% in the following eight years, again according to the ONS.
Having the ambition to be a life science superpower is one thing. It is perfectly laudable, and all of us can agree and sign up to it. However, so long as we have living standards in this country that are grossly behind our western European counterparts—we have higher costs, higher prices, lower wages and a public realm that physically just does not work, if we are completely honest—the Government can completely forget being a superpower in anything other than a brain drain. If anything that Ministers have said from the Dispatch Box is to mean anything, they need to fix the living standards problem every household is dealing with.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I expected to spend longer talking about corporation tax following this Budget, but I will not talk much about that today. When we look at the rates elsewhere, we would all like to see it lower as a long-term ambition, but there is a lot of really good stuff in this Budget to offset that. In particular, there are the tax reliefs for R&D we have heard about. I would say that small and medium-sized enterprises getting £27 from HMRC for every £100 of R&D investment is a really excellent policy.
Locally, we very much feel that we have a great chance to become the superpower we have heard about recently, because Bassetlaw will be the home of the STEP—spherical tokamak for energy production—fusion project. It is something we are incredibly proud of, and for our future energy generation, it is something we can take out to the world. We will have the world’s first commercial STEP fusion energy plant, which will be built at the home of one of the last coal-fired power stations, so this is very much about changing from old technology to new. It is about the billions this will generate, as well as the growth, the jobs and the apprentices we are going to get as we go from fossil to fusion.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
And it is 5 miles from the town of Gainsborough.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
Yes, of course, and Gainsborough is a very important town to us locally. It fits within our local economy, and I am sure this project will benefit my right hon. Friend’s town as well. I know he is very passionate about this subject, and at the moment he is campaigning for further involvement in and recognition of this project for his constituency.
We know we are going to get an investment zone in the east midlands, and I think this would be an excellent site for one. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), who is in his place, has been campaigning every single day for at least the last six months an investment zone at Doncaster Sheffield airport, which would be another really great site. Neighbouring zones will of course all work together for growth in our regions. We do not just draw a line around our region; we work together and interact, and Yorkshire is incredibly important to us.
Just last week, for Open Doors week, I visited Europe’s largest concrete facility, Laing O’Rourke in Worksop, which is a centre of excellence for modern construction. It makes pre-cast components, and it is actually manufacturing a lot of the parts for Everton football club’s new stadium. I was going to make a few jokes about it being probably the best ground in the championship next season, but there is a lot of competition in the premier league right now, and I think I will stick to Notts County jokes before I upset anybody. There is also a £28 million privately funded carbon capture and power generation plant in Rhodesia in my constituency. Such companies want to invest in this country because of this Conservative Government, who are pro-growth and pro-business.
To top it off, the icing on the cake for Bassetlaw was to find out about the levelling-up partnership that we are going to be part of. This is worth £400 million for 20 different places in this country, and we are very proud to be one of them. We have had £20 million announced for Worksop town centre, which is going to be transformative as we move more from retail to leisure, get people going back into our town centre and get a bit of pride back into our town centre. This partnership also helps other towns that have missed out or have perhaps been neglected by a Labour council, such as Retford. There is lots to be done there, too, and we have great links on the east coast main line. It is a wonderful town with a lot of great facilities and great people, and the drive is there to go forward and grow.
How does this Budget affect the average, everyday person? We talk about these figures—millions and billions—all the time, but for me the Budget comes down to individuals and families, and what we are going to do for them. With our blue-collar offering, there is quite a lot we can be very pleased with. As a former children’s Minister, I think the childcare proposals for those from nine months on that have been outlined can be absolutely transformative and really help parents. I have had parents say to me that they would like it to happen straight away, but I think we all realise that there are capacity issues, and the sector is of course going to need some time to adapt. I know there are arguments both ways on ratios—some people like them, some do not—but it is as much about flexibility for nurseries as it is about money. To give an example, one time when I took my young child along to the nursery, I and many other parents had to wait because a member of staff was stuck in traffic. I think the nursery was one child over the ratio level, and we had to wait until the member of staff got there. We are giving nurseries flexibility in that kind of situation, and of course it is optional, which is great.
The freeze on fuel duty is really great for working people. What is not so great are ultra low emission zones. Many people are having to drive through them and pay exorbitant amounts of money just to drop their children off at school. It is very much a tax on the white van man—if someone wants to go into Sheffield, they are going to be charged. People think this is just about London, but it is not. It penalises working people. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) is mentioning Manchester, and I know people are very concerned about it there. This is something we need to stop: we should not be taxing people to go to work.
Finally, people will be really pleased with the action on energy prepayment meters. We have given a huge amount of support for people’s energy bills, but we all know that those on meters are sometimes the most vulnerable in our society, and those who struggle the most are paying a penalty. It is absolutely right that we have done something to change that. With all Budgets, a lot of people like to use the word “but”; I prefer to use the word “and” for the things we would like to see in the future. I think this is a good Budget, and there is lots of good stuff in it. It is a great Budget for Bassetlaw, and I commend it.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I am sorry that I cannot be as enthusiastic about the Budget as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), but it is good to see somebody so upbeat about something.
Personally, I am very disappointed with the Budget. I had expected more from a Chancellor who had been a Secretary of State for Health, and subsequently Chair of its scrutiny Committee, with responsibility for one of our biggest and most treasured public institutions—the NHS. There was nothing in this Budget to address the staff crisis in the health service, and no mention of the long-awaited workforce plan. While the controversial decision to remove the lifetime pension allowance may or may not encourage senior doctors to put off retirement, there was no confirmation of a pay award for the health workers, or the thousands of other skilled and hard-working public sector workers across the board, who have had no option but to take strike action after 13 years of pay cuts and a fall in real wages. The OBR confirms they will fall again this year. Paul Nowak, the general secretary of the TUC, in commenting on the Budget, was right to say:
“The Chancellor spoke about a high-wage and high-skills economy but did nothing to deliver it. The UK is still in the longest pay squeeze for more than 200 years. And our public services are still run-down and understaffed.”
Childcare is important to the Budget and the economy, not just in North Tyneside but across the country. It is a massive issue for parents in North Tyneside and for nursery providers, and we know it will be a priority for an incoming Labour Government. The Chancellor’s increase in funding for childcare is welcome, but the two-year phasing in programme does nothing to solve the immediate need. Where does that leave families struggling to find and fund adequate childcare now? How does it help the childcare providers struggling to pay ever-increasing overheads and meet salaries for existing staff, when the increase in Government funding for free childcare places still falls far short of the hourly rate of pay for those staff? That is not to mention the problems attracting new recruits to the profession; the salary hardly seems appropriate for years of training and the prospect of working long hours when people can earn more money working in unskilled jobs.
Save the Children says that we also need a strategy for investing in skills development for childcare workers. High-quality childcare must be about enabling every child to have the best start in life. That does not seem to be a priority for the Government. Reducing the ratio of adults to children, for example, just sends out the wrong signal.
Our seven local authorities, including North Tyneside, have welcomed the north-east devolution deal, which will bring £4.2 billion of investment into our region over 30 years and see additional powers transferred from Whitehall to local people. However, the Chancellor did not mention the all-important trailblazer status that was agreed with the Secretary of State at the signing of the north-east authority agreement.
North Tyneside itself was short-changed in the Chancellor’s Budget. The council will get £500,000 in pothole funding, but that is only £1 of every £8 the Government have cut from the pothole budget since 2021. North Tyneside will not receive any of the regeneration funding that has been announced and will still have to bid as a lower-priority area in the next round of the levelling-up fund. While I congratulate South Tyneside Council on its new levelling-up partnership funding, I am concerned—and, I confess, a little jealous—that there is no such funding for North Tyneside.
I continue to be worried about the future of small businesses in North Tyneside. The Federation of Small Businesses says that the Chancellor missed the chance to bring in measures that could have jump-started a new era of growth and productivity. For years, small business have been the backbone of the economy. The Chancellor would do well to listen to the FSB.
With the cost of living crisis still bearing down on households in North Tyneside and across the UK, the Chancellor provided little comfort other than extending the energy price guarantee for a further three months and a few more crumbs from the table. For my constituents and people across the country, times have always been hard under the Tories, and that will continue while they remain in power. It is time for Labour to take the reins.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
On the earlier theme, it is important that I declare that I do not have a science degree, but it would impress the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), to know that my degree, being as it is, does indeed come from the University of Manchester.
I put in to speak in the debate less on the allocated subject matter and more in the forlorn belief that the best time to speak in a Budget debate is after a set of Sunday newspapers, because they often allow the detail to percolate through. To the credit of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, very little seems to have come up in them to trip him up.
We have had all sorts of talk this afternoon of macroeconomic forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) spoke of banking crises across the world, and we have heard a great deal about artificial intelligence—presuming that is what “AI” stands for—but, in the age-old Back-Bench tradition, I want to talk about very parochial matters.
I know that the House will have noted with great enthusiasm and interest, on page 72 of the magnificent Budget document, the announcement of a new community hub in Stockport—the Marple leisure hub. There was some bashfulness at the talk of swimming pools during the speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not fussed about swimming pools in Richmond, Yorkshire, or indeed about general donations from the Treasury to keep the pool temperature in different leisure centres toasty warm; what I am concerned about is the success—finally—in securing the Marple leisure hub.
The hub will be a magnificent boost for Marple and surrounding districts in my constituency. It will deliver a gym, a fitness studio, a new library, a community space and a five-lane swimming pool. When I saw the artist’s plan at an earlier stage, I noted that there were only four lanes, but we have achieved five—a massive 25% productivity increase, delivered overnight by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am absolutely enthused. The artist’s impression even has an inflatable flamingo. What could go wrong?
In all seriousness, I am very pleased that that levelling-up bid was successful for my constituency. I should pay credit—those on the Opposition Benches may enjoy this—to the then Labour minority-led Stockport Council, which agreed with me that that was the right bid for the Hazel Grove constituency. It will not surprise the House—I cannot spot any Liberal Democrats in the Chamber—that a few more have claimed credit for it who had, it is fair to say, very little to do with it. I will tone down my language for the sake of Hansard, but success has many parents and failure has fewer—let us put it that way.
I have been quite cheerful so far—those on the Treasury Bench must think, “What on earth has happened?”—but in the time remaining to me I will speak briefly about something else that lurks in the Budget document: Greater Manchester devolution. I am a contrarian. I can see many colleagues from Greater Manchester on the Opposition Benches. They must rejoice when the Mayor is given further powers and the ability to exercise them—
Mr Wragg
Indeed, indeed. Whether he exercises them wisely is a matter for debate—I think even some Opposition Members would concede that point.
All I ask is that the Government pay attention to those of us who have the great honour to represent parts of Greater Manchester. Having been to a so-called briefing meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Department for Levelling Up and whatever else it is called these days, I was somewhat perturbed and worried that I was, in the words of his WhatsApp message to the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), simply in a therapy session, whereby our concerns would be heard but no action would be forthcoming.
In the spirit of cheerfulness, I simply say to the Government that if I and my colleagues from Greater Manchester are simply to be subjected to therapy sessions, then I shall make sure that I turn up at Delegated Legislation Committees in the same cheerful vein to argue against aspects of this so-called deal. I urge the Government to pay attention to Greater Manchester Conservative MPs—indeed, to any Member of Parliament from Greater Manchester—when they bring forward this tranche of powers that have no legitimacy and very little demand.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). I look forward to catching up once again at our annual meet-up at the carnival in July, and I wish him all the best with his therapy.
The Secretary of State mentioned the great British invention of tarmac. John Loudon McAdam was a Scottish engineer in the 17th and 18th centuries who added coal tar to stone surfaces. That became tarmac, or “tarmacadam”—that is where the name comes from. I thought it was an odd reference for the Secretary of State to make, though, as we cannot get enough money for our crumbling roads and the potholes that we all face.
Every day, I hear residents and businesses in Wythenshawe and Sale East talk about the harsh realities of the cost of living at the moment: old-age pensioners are afraid to put on their heating; more and more working families are using food banks; nurses, teachers and firefighters are struggling with household bills as costs go up and their pay stays the same; people are unable to meet private rents or manage rising mortgage rates; and local businesses are closing down because of overheads.
Last Wednesday, the Chancellor had a chance to show that he is on the side of Britain’s people and businesses with a Budget that offered real support and serious solutions, but that is not the Budget we got. Instead, what the Chancellor offered was a Budget that did worse than deny people’s realities: it insulted them, with a £1 billion pension cut for the richest 1%; a stealth tax freezing income tax levels, meaning workers will see their pay squeezed further; and an overarching message that the Government’s plan was working and the economy was not that bad, at the same time as the OECD announced that the UK will be the only—the only—G7 economy to shrink this year.
Where the Chancellor came closest to offering real support, he did so by stealing ideas from others, yet bungled the detail. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) mentioned the expansion of free childcare. Sadly, we will not see that crucial support to help parents get back into work introduced in full until September 2025. As it stands, the subsidy from childcare providers is so high that it threatens to put them out of business.
I welcome the extension of the help with energy bills. The Government again capitulated to what Labour and campaign groups have been calling for, for months. But with an extension of just three months and more limited support, what we are seeing is more sticking-plaster politics. Where is the investment in green energy, which is the only way we will achieve true energy security? Then there was more of the same, with recycled ideas and empty promises from the many Tory Chancellors and Prime Ministers of the past. To level up, the Chancellor announced plans for the Truss-Kwarteng “investment zones”. Forget HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail or solid regeneration projects for Wythenshawe town centre and Sale town centre, all of which have been delayed or denied by the Government. Instead, they think these low-tax, reduced regulation, potential Canary Wharfs will generate jobs and skills in left-behind communities. These are far from the serious solutions that Britain needs. What the Chancellor put forward is a Budget that denies reality, delivers little and borrows heavily; a Budget from a Government who are out of touch, out of ideas and quickly running out of time.
Under this Government, people are getting poorer. People are being supported into work, but getting paid less and taxed more, while public services struggle to cope—all the hallmarks of an economy in managed decline. Our people and businesses deserve more. We need a Budget that delivers for people, communities and businesses like those in Wythenshawe and Sale East: 1,600 homes for Wythenshawe town centre, if we had got our levelling up bid; 250 homes for Sale town centre; investment to regenerate Wythenshawe hospital, but with the hospital building programme stuck in the muck we could build 1,000 homes on that site with the right release of investment; an HS2 station near my constituency and an extended Metrolink loop line; a station on the mid-Cheshire line; scrapping business rates; and a proper plan to address skills gaps that are holding back our small and large businesses.
What we need is a Budget that acknowledges reality and the scale of the challenge head-on, but meets them with the hope, ambition and determination needed to get Britain back on the path to growth. But for that style of Budget, it seems we will have to wait longer still.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I would like to add my name to the growing list of Members with a science degree. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) will be pleased to hear that it is from the University of Manchester.
Since I was last able to make a contribution to a Budget debate from the Back Benches, the economic outlook, both at home and abroad, has shifted dramatically. The aftermath of the pandemic, compounded by the effects of the war in Ukraine, has left many of the world’s leading economies battling a combination of high inflation and mounting debt.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is to be commended for the measures he has brought forward to meet the target of halving inflation by the end of the year, to continue to support people with record high energy bills and, crucially, to avoid a recession. That is not just my assessment, but one reflected in the feedback I received on the doorsteps from my constituents across Erewash this weekend as we were out canvassing. They described the Chancellor’s statement as measured, confident and logical.
I want to focus on tech, and specifically the support for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Everyone will remember the important role the MHRA played during the pandemic. It was the first medicines regulator to authorise a vaccine against covid-19. Its worldwide reputation is second to none. Many other regulators quickly followed in its footsteps in authorising vaccines, as they trusted its decisions. It was not just the fact that it was first on so many occasions in approving new vaccines—including the bivalent vaccine, effective against the original Wuhan strain and omicron—but the way it did it.
Traditionally, the different stages of clinical trials are carried out sequentially, but whether it was a vaccine or a therapeutic, the acceptance that regulation could be made on data generated by stages of clinical trials carried out in parallel was a real and significant breakthrough. Yes, on most occasions the MHRA was first to authorise a vaccine from the variety of suppliers available, but on some occasions it was able to base its approval on Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency approval.
That type of linked-up working for a wider range of medicines is now being facilitated by the allocation of funding in the Budget. As has been acknowledged by Dr June Raine, the MHRA’s chief executive, the £10 million funding will be used to fund its ongoing innovation work and accelerate the development of groundbreaking global recognition routes. That will undoubtedly give UK patients faster access to the most cutting-edge medical products in the world.
A few weeks ago, I was invited by the former chief executive of the British Bankers Association and one of my predecessors as the Member of Parliament for Erewash, Angela Knight, to speak to a delegation of senior business leaders, during which we discussed the importance of public health and the value of health tech to the economy. It is estimated that the private sector alone loses over 100 million workdays each year to sickness absences, greatly impacting on productivity and hindering wealth creation.
To fully capitalise on the creation of new investment zones, as well as the expansion of UK civil nuclear, led by Derby-based Rolls-Royce, we must ask ourselves: how do we keep the UK workforce healthier for longer? The answer is through a combination of targeted public health measures aimed at prevention, such as tackling obesity and reducing levels of smoking, together with innovative health tech partnerships, such as the one signed by the Government and Moderna to invest in mRNA research and development and build a state-of-the-art vaccine manufacturing centre here in Britain.
Returning to the targeted public health measures announced in the Budget, I especially welcome the £60 million for public swimming pools. I trust it will be distributed fairly to ensure that swimming pools such as those at West Park leisure centre in Long Eaton and Victoria leisure centre in Ilkeston can continue to be used by my constituents to support both their physical and mental health.
This Budget is designed to inspire confidence in the British economy and will continue to provide the stability that has so often been the watchword of the Conservative Government led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My constituents stand to benefit greatly from the measures introduced to curb inflation, help with the cost of living—we heard about many aspects of that, including the change to prepayment meters and protecting energy payments—and safeguard vital public services. I am sure that many of my constituents will raise a glass or two to the Chancellor for again backing the British pub. I therefore look forward to backing the Budget in the Lobby tomorrow evening.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
May I, too, welcome you back to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is good to see you there.
I want to use the couple of minutes I have to pass comment on this year’s spring Budget to try to convey some of the reality that my constituents are living through and how these economic measures affect their lives. That is important, because it is the 13th spring Budget delivered by a Conservative Chancellor. The test is simple: how are the people I represent doing after 13 consecutive Budgets from a Conservative Government? Are the communities that I represent thriving? Is life a little easier? Are they earning more and maybe working a little less? Real wages across every region of the UK are lower now than when the Conservatives came to power in 2010. Are schools being properly resourced to help give children the best start in life? Are hospitals functioning and well staffed? Are the buses and trains affordable and running on time? Obviously, my constituents would answer a resounding no.
What about the question of whether society is more equal than when the Conservatives came to power? Today, half of all UK wealth is held by the top 10% and the lion’s share of it by the top 1%. Think of the circumstances in which this Prime Minister and Chancellor came to their positions: their predecessors lasted 49 and 38 days respectively, and the fallout from their disastrous mini-budget cost the country £30 billion. Necessarily, by simple contrast, that makes the current incumbents look uber-competent. That, with a couple of major macroeconomic developments such as the halving of gas prices over the last six months, makes the economic forecasts slightly less catastrophic than might have been case just last year. All that can be spun to tell quite a good story and there are certainly press barons willing to print that up.
If the Prime Minister promises to cut inflation by half and declining energy costs make that a reality—it was quite a safe bet when the promise was made—should my constituents really be grateful? They are still worse off, although by a little less than they once thought they might be. I ask Government Front Benchers: is that the scale of expectation that the public should now have? Is it the best that the Conservative party can offer to the country?
This Budget is one of continuing, long-term managed decline: of people’s wages; of the public services that people rely on; of social security; of security at work, where low-paid, insecure contracts are now the norm; of local authority budgets—another £50 million has been cut from Liverpool this year; of investment, with the UK having the lowest business investment in the G7; and of disposable income, with people working simply to pay the bills. Most tragically of all, there is the managed decline of people’s living standards: the longest fall in living standards on record. It is the managed decline of people’s hopes, dreams and ambitions, and our collective capacity to realise them. As Martin Wolf of the Financial Times has said, we are heading into
“a lost decade...coming on top of a very poor previous decade”.
My time as an MP has been characterised by a constant struggle to prevent the worst from happening to my constituents—whether that is fighting to save local fire stations or care homes from closure, trying to stop vulnerable people from having their support taken away, or giving solidarity to workers whose jobs, pay and conditions are under threat. We are sick of just trying to prevent the worst. We are sick of managed decline. We want to unlock the potential of our people and give communities the power and the resources to focus on what they can achieve.
The latest Prime Minister and Chancellor could have taken the opportunity to change approach. Instead, we have a business-as-usual Budget from a Conservative Government out of ideas and out of time. We need nothing less than national renewal—a new deal for working people; a bold, clean energy transition; an investment-led economy, based on making, not taking; and wealth, power and opportunity spread to every region and every community. Only then can we reclaim the future and look forward, once again, to a brighter tomorrow.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) in praising the Government for bringing a nuclear fusion site to West Burton. As I have already said, it is not 5 miles from Gainsborough—indeed, Gainsborough is the closest town. I very much hope that the Minister will support my campaign to rename the site the “Gainsborough West Burton” site.
Gainsborough was at the heart of the industrial revolution in the 19th century, bringing in new products. This site is a chance for us to go with the flow through a brand new technology. We want to create apprenticeships and to involve the whole region. I really want to make that clear. Gainsborough is an industrial town with traditionally high levels of employment. I am delighted that the Government have given us £10 million in levelling-up funds. We are grateful to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for giving that to Gainsborough South West ward—the 27th most deprived ward in the entire country.
However, there is no point one hand of the Government giving us £10 million in levelling up if the other hand is potentially taking £300 million of investment away from my constituency. As I mentioned in Home Office questions today, we have developed a wonderful deal for RAF Scampton—home of the Dambusters and the Red Arrows—creating heritage, a spaceport, a hotel and industry. The whole thing is at risk because the Home Office is now marching in and threatening to put 1,500 migrants there. This has nothing to do with the fact that they are migrants or not migrants; it is about the fact that we cannot develop the site, which is relatively developed now, if it is held by the Home Office for two years. Levelling up is at the heart of this Budget. We must have co-ordinated government—co-ordination between the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
I want to make a more general point. Thatcherites such as myself are always banging on about the need for tax cuts. There is no point in our doing that if we are not controlling public spending. Of course I regret that corporation tax is going up, but I recognise that the public finances are in a state of crisis. I really encourage Ministers on the Front Bench to redouble their efforts to ensure that there is efficiency and economy in our public services; I speak as a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
There is still grotesque waste throughout the public sector. I am now on the sponsor board of the restoration and renewal programme: hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted on doing nothing to renovate the building where we are now—years wasted! It is a small point, but I read in the newspapers that we are already spending about £100 million on the covid inquiry, hiring hundreds of lawyers. Right through the public sector, we rely on the Chief Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that we get good value for money.
One of the ways in which we will eventually make the public sector work better is through more of a sense of self-reliance. I do not want to make further points about the triple lock, because I will get into trouble if I criticise it in any shape or form—it is very politically difficult—but the Government must have a strategy to deal with it. The ideas developed by Peter Lilley when he was Secretary of State are exciting and interesting.
We cannot just go on having a national health service that consumes an ever larger proportion of national income but is riddled with waste and incompetence and delivers worse and worse outcomes. We have to be prepared and have the political courage to learn from countries such as Australia, France and New Zealand, which have a mix of public and private provision that ensures that they have what are frankly much better health services because they are unleashing people’s enthusiasm to invest in their health. The previous Conservative Government gave tax relief for private health insurance, and we should not dismiss that.
I want to make one more point. Of course we all welcome the extra provision for childcare, but it is a massive extension of the state. It is desirable in itself—I am entirely in favour of mothers who want to work being allowed and encouraged to do so even when their babies are as young as nine months—but we must also support mothers who want to stay at home. The marriage tax allowance was introduced by Nigel Lawson. It was allowed to wither on the vine, and was then reintroduced by George Osborne in 2015, but it is not well-advertised or taken up. It is fairly derisory, and amounts to only about £1,700. If a couple earns £70,000, they are £7,000 worse off as far as the taxman is concerned if the mother stays at home looking after a child and the husband goes to work.
The marriage tax allowance is not just for married couples but for couples in a civil partnership. The Government should be neutral about the fact that, often, it is in the interests of the child and the mother, where the mother wants to do so, for her to be allowed by the tax regime to stay at home and not to be forced by the tax regime or by her personal circumstances to go out and work. A Conservative Government believe in choice, and that is what I want to impress on the Government.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Politics is about priorities. At a time when people in my constituency are struggling with the cost of living, this Budget was an opportunity for the Government to put working people first and to get us on the pathway to growth, making everyone—not just the wealthy—better off. From speaking to my constituents, it is clear that the cost of living should be the priority right now. One constituent wrote to me recently:
“I have had enough of constantly struggling every day, day after day for months and years.”
My constituent is not alone. Recent polling from 38 Degrees found that in Enfield Southgate, 40% of people have not been able to afford to turn the heating on when cold in the past month.
As people are forced to choose between heating and eating, I am pleased that the Government have followed Labour’s calls to freeze energy bills for another three months, and for prepayment meter charges to be brought in line with direct debit payments. However, the cost of living crisis is not over, and inequality is growing. For people struggling with sky-high bills, rents and mortgages, I fear that the help included in this Budget will not really touch the sides. Some 31% of my constituents are worried about having to use a food bank in the next year. Charities, food banks and community organisations such as the great Cooking Champions in Enfield, which provides groceries and cooked meals for those in need, face all-time-high demand, and 26% of people in Enfield Southgate have missed rent payments in the last six months as housing insecurity compounds cost of living pressures.
The Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box last week and talked about the difficult decisions that the Government took in the autumn to deliver stability. While he and the Conservatives may dance around the issue, people in Enfield Southgate will not forget why those difficult decisions were needed, as the fallout from the Government’s disastrous mini-Budget, fuelled by an ideological fixation on failed trickle-down economics, drags on to this day. In my constituency, families face mortgage hikes of more than £6,000. That is the devastating, real-life impact of the Conservatives’ economic mismanagement—a Tory mortgage penalty in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
In that context, I return to priorities. This Budget was an opportunity to tackle the long-term challenges that we face with the cost of living, and to begin the clean-up after 13 years of Conservative failure on the economy. Instead, while family incomes and living standards fall to record lows and working people face the highest tax burden in 70 years, the Chancellor made it his priority to spend £1 billion on an untargeted tax cut for the richest 1% and their pension pots, in the midst of a cost of living crisis. That shows what side the Tories are on.
There are three issues that I would like to raise that were not covered in this Budget fully. First, the windfall tax was not mentioned last week, despite oil and gas giants continuing to rake in record profits at our expense. Last year, Shell reported the highest profits in its 115-year history and one of the largest profits in UK corporate history, while BP made profits of £23 billion in the same year, up from £10.6 billion. It is outrageous that the people of Enfield Southgate are struggling to pay their energy bills as oil and gas giants line their pockets. All the while, the Government sit idly by, leaving £10.4 billion on the table through holes in their half-baked energy profits levy. We needed a proper windfall tax on the oil and gas giants’ unearned profits of war—billions of pounds that could help families and businesses across the UK through the cost of living crisis.
For renters, there was nothing from the Chancellor, despite rents in London increasing 17.8% on average last year. Every week, more constituents come to me with housing issues, from families facing eviction to people struggling to meet unaffordable rent rises. It is an incredibly worrying time for many, and this Budget did nothing to help them or to solve the housing crisis that has engulfed our country since the Conservatives took office. In Enfield, under this Government’s watch, funding for the council has been cut by 60%. Quite simply, how can councils tackle fundamental issues such as housing insecurity and shortages if the Tory Government in Westminster refuse to properly fund local government?
Finally, I would like to mention hospices because, although there is brief respite from the energy price guarantee freeze, long-term problems remain for hospices up and down the country. I welcome the announcement of more money for charities and hospices such as North London Hospice in Enfield, but the Treasury must release the money quickly to enable hospices to meet their energy bill demands as they struggle to maintain essential clinical services for some of the most vulnerable people in our community, in the face of unprecedented price rises and funding challenges.
Last week, the Chancellor said that “the plan is working”. If the plan is papering over the cracks of 13 years of decline, I might agree, but this Budget should have been a game changer. The people of Enfield Southgate deserve better than a tired Tory Government with the wrong priorities and nobody left to blame. It is time that they stepped aside and let a Labour Government take over and deal with the real priorities that matter to the people.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is wonderful to see you in your rightful place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This Budget is an example of how this Conservative Government are investing in Britain and in levelling up communities across the country, including in my constituency. The £20 million for the breakwater refurbishment in Holyhead will help to support the redevelopment of the second busiest roll-on roll-off port in the UK. The support offered to individuals and households, in particular for childcare, will open new opportunities for the working-age population in my constituency, but it is the nuclear energy announcements that I believe will have the greatest long-term impact on the people and economy of Ynys Môn. It is nuclear that I have consistently campaigned on and championed. I was delighted that my constituency was mentioned in the Chancellor’s speech.
Earlier this month, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, co-signed by 57 right hon. and hon. Friends. In that letter, I asked the Prime Minister to push ahead with a bold new programme of nuclear power construction under the aegis of Great British Nuclear and to make new nuclear energy part of the green taxonomy. Great British Nuclear and the vision of our British energy security strategy would enable this country to make enormous strides toward energy independence, net zero and a more prosperous and balanced economy.
Every single nuclear power station online in Britain today was connected to the grid under a Conservative Government. The stations that we approve and build today will give the United Kingdom secure, reliable energy for at least 80 years. They will stand as this Government’s green legacy to our children and our children’s children. By announcing the intention to include nuclear in our green taxonomy, we open the gates to investment that was not previously accessible, and demonstrate to the world that we are committed to new nuclear. By backing small modular reactors through a competitive process, we will derive best value and drive our nuclear energy production forward in innovative ways that can tackle both national and local demand.
Ynys Môn is one of Rolls-Royce’s four potential SMR sites. I have taken around the island SMR companies, such Last Energy and GE Hitachi, with a view to investing on Ynys Môn. But it is the outcome of all these words that my constituents are most interested in. This Budget paves the way for regenerating Wylfa—currently the site of a nuclear power plant undergoing decommissioning. I hope, soon, to see spades in the ground for the UK’s next new nuclear construction.
In case you have not heard, Madam Deputy Speaker, alongside these exciting developments, Ynys Môn is awaiting the outcome of its bid to become a freeport and I have an Anglesey freeport jacket especially for you. The freeport would be the last piece of the puzzle that would allow us to unleash the full potential of Ynys Môn. A freeport would work hand in hand with these nuclear announcements and make Ynys Môn a thriving, successful and economically productive part of the UK. Together, new nuclear and an Anglesey freeport would unleash our potential and make us roar.
The impact on Ynys Môn of such a step change in its fortunes would be huge—the culmination of decades of “nearly theres” for my constituents. It would bring employment, investment and the opportunity for local people to work locally. My dad had to leave Wales to find work. He could not afford to have his family in Wales. I have come back to ensure that other people do not have to leave and there is good-quality employment, right there on Ynys Môn.
The choice for our young people on Ynys Môn will no longer be to stay in their communities on low-paid and often seasonal work, or to leave in search of a career, like my father. They will be able to stay local, train local, work local and contribute local. That is what this Conservative Government and levelling up are all about. Diolch yn fawr.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is good to see you back, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Today, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate science report reminds us that we are not doing enough to tackle climate change. While we continue to have a clear moral obligation to prioritise reaching net zero, we are now at a critical time for companies to invest in the technologies for the future. If the UK Government do not provide the appropriate conditions and incentives for multinational companies to choose to site their new production lines in the UK, they will go elsewhere. There will be not just one factory closure, but multiple factory closures. We will lose critical mass and a whole generation of investment. That would be a tragedy, when we think back to our role in the industrial revolution and about the world-class research and development that takes place in the UK’s great universities and leading manufacturers.
The US Inflation Reduction Act and the European Union green deal industrial plan pose real challenges for the UK. Sadly, this Chancellor’s Budget was an extremely disappointing response to what is going on elsewhere. It prompted the CEO of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to say of it:
“There is little, however, that enables the UK to compete with the massive packages of support to power a green transition that are available elsewhere.”
That is particularly galling as we do have the ideas to invest in innovation and research and development, and, at the same time, we have a desperate need for the Government to create growth. Just last week, the OECD report, “A Fragile Recovery”, repeated that Britain’s economy will have the worst performance of any advanced country this year. That is a disgrace this Tory Government should be ashamed of.
The investment needs to be comprehensive. For example, the automotive transformation fund needs not just to support the development of batteries and electrical components, but to be available to companies such as those in my constituency investing in the development of lighter bodywork parts, which are essential for improved electric vehicles.
That is why we need a bold investment programme, such as the one Labour proposes of some £28 billion a year, so we can lead the green revolution, and develop, manufacture and export goods from our proposed export hubs, rather than find ourselves left behind in the green technological race, with factory lines shutting down as the manufacture of current models is phased out and our manufacturing base disappearing, leaving us ever more dependent on imports and exposed to the vagaries of world markets.
Time and again, from way before the current energy crisis, we have raised the issue of uncompetitive energy costs in industry and business. If the UK had invested considerably more in renewables, we would have been much less reliant on imported gas and in a much better position to control our energy prices. Yet this Tory Government have wasted so many years, dragging their feet on investment in renewables, with their absurd ideological ban on onshore wind in England—a ban there was absolutely no need for. We have just had a begrudging, half-hearted reversal of that ban, with no real enthusiasm and no renewed drive to accelerate the roll-out of this, the cheapest and easiest form of renewable energy to produce. And what did we hear in the autumn? Measures to curtail solar panel expansion investment. What will the Government now do to give a real boost to the transition to renewables?
We recently witnessed the fiasco where wind energy was being generated in Scotland, but because of lack of grid capacity, it could not be transmitted to England, where consumers needed it. So there is work to be done for the national grid just to catch up with the present, never mind prepare for the future.
I know the Climate Change Minister in the Welsh Government, Julie James MS, is mindful of the likely quantities of energy that will be generated by offshore wind in the Celtic sea. She has raised with the UK Government the vital work that is needed to the national grid to ensure that energy can be transported from where it is generated to where it is needed. Yet when I have mentioned that here in this place, I have been met with looks of incredulity from some Members of the Government Front Bench. So I ask again: given the huge potential for increasing output from both onshore and offshore wind, please can the Minister responding to the debate set out in detail what talks Ministers have had with National Grid about ensuring grid capacity will be able to transmit power from where it is generated to where it is needed? How do the Government intend to accelerate the development of the national grid?
I turn to the Horizon programme, the EU programme that UK universities have particularly benefited from in the past, as they have been seen as attractive partners for other European countries. There was an abject failure by this Government in their Brexit negotiations not to come to a cordial agreement with the EU whereby we could, albeit from outside the EU, have collaborated on Horizon or similar programmes. Investors are now coming to the end of current programmes and unable to plan for the future.
The UK Government keep trying to blame the EU for the delays to the Horizon association, but they should be taking responsibility for their actions in breaking their manifesto promise to broker an association. In summing up, can the Minister update us on negotiations for the UK to have Horizon associate status, and ensure that our universities can benefit and compete with the best in the world?
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am in the parliamentary pension fund and I may be affected by the lifetime allowance changes.
Listening to the debate today, one would be forgiven for forgetting the fact that we had the worst public health emergency for 100 years, in which the Government had to take actions to lock the economy down. I had my disagreements with my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), but you cannot say his motives were bad. He was trying to save lives and to get through a pandemic. We did not know whether the disease was going to be deadly, mild or what. That cost a lot of money and had a big impact on many businesses. If several million people are sent to sit at home for months on end while the Bank of England is printing money, it should not be a surprise if, at the end of that, inflation is high and living standards are under some challenge. The only people who could be surprised about the fact that the last 12 or 18 months have been difficult economically are those who did not think that there would be any consequences to lockdown. There were consequences. We are getting through them and things are improving, but that means there have to be some tough and difficult decisions on issues such as tax.
On the Government Benches, sometimes we do not like to put up taxes, but sometimes it is necessary. If we look at what the Government have done, we see that they have a plan, which is working. Between now and the next general election, there will probably be five statements or Budgets. We are at stage 2, so there are another three to go. In November, there were predictions of a recession—quite a big recession, actually—in the early part of this year, a rise in unemployment and a black hole in public spending. They have all sort of disappeared, which means the Government have stabilised the situation.
The Government have been trying to ensure that more people can get back into the labour force, with changes to childcare. They have protected a lot of capital budgets through their decisions, and their main objective in the Budget is to keep the economy growing. I understand why people quote the International Monetary Fund, but its predictions, which are always educated guesses, were produced before the German economy went into a recession at the end of last year. At the moment, neither the French nor the German economy is performing as well as the British economy.
The truth of the matter is that we have a spike in inflation, which should come down quite rapidly this year. There will be a crossover point, somewhere around May, June or July, at which inflation will fall below the rate of pay increases. We will then start to have an increase in living standards from this summer onwards, and some of the squeezes that families are facing will be reversed. If the public finances improve as we grow, I hope that my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will be able to cut taxation. There is a lot to be said for the Budget, which is one further step in the direction of sensible economics and nursing our economy and our public and individual finances back to health, so I support what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are doing.
I was pleased by what my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) said about nuclear, particularly small modular. It is very important that we get on with that because, as always, we need a balanced range with not just renewables and gas but nuclear power.
I am generally pleased with what the Budget has done: I think that the outlook has measurably improved. We can still see some fragility in the world economy, certainly when we look at Switzerland or the United States, so we have to take a cautious approach, but I am sure that if we do so and nurse the economy back to health, our nation will be rather the better for it in 12 or 18 months’ time.
I say to the Opposition: if we are right, we will beat you, and if you are right, you will beat us. I keep hearing about these 13 years of misery, but we won an election in 2015, we won an election in 2017 and we won an election in 2019. We may well win the election in 2024, but it will really be determined by whether the Treasury team get it right. My view is that they probably are getting it right; the Opposition’s difficulty is that they have to sit there and watch us getting it right. I think it is going to be an interesting 18 months.
The hospitality sector in Bournemouth and Poole thinks that VAT is too high. The Isan Thai restaurant in Poole and the Lakeside restaurant in Poole would like to see it reduced when we can afford it, not least because many restaurants do not pay VAT on food, so the real rate of VAT at 20%, when they do not have many offsets, is quite a painful thing to pay. I told them that I would raise that point in this debate.
I think we are going in the right direction. I think we will see an improvement as we go through the year, and it will fundamentally change the politics of our country.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Madam Ddirprwy Lefarydd. May I say that it really is a pleasure to see you back here? It makes something different about this place.
Communities across Wales are experiencing the biggest fall in living standards since records began. People will have looked to the Budget for a long-term economic plan to fix the structural issues impoverishing our economy, yet with incomes still set to be lower than their pre-pandemic levels by 2028, this Budget clearly does not go far enough. The UK Government must go further with investment in research and innovation, and must recognise the importance of our universities in unlocking Wales’s economic potential.
Universities attract investment, ensure that our industries have access to skilled graduates, and provide the foundation for the research ecosystems that enable innovation. In response to the covid pandemic, for example, Bangor University developed a much-praised process for testing waste water for the virus, which could detect the emergence of new variants, and it is now exploring other ways in which waste water can be used to improve people’s health and guide future healthcare policy. Yet Bangor tells me it is concerned that it was not able to bid successfully to provide that service in England, even though it is still doing so for the Welsh Government. It is a matter of concern if there is a two-system approach to university investments from this Government.
Despite the many such examples of research excellence, the Budget failed to address the looming cliff edge that Welsh universities face. In April, 60 research projects and 1,000 skilled jobs across Wales will be put at risk when EU structural funding comes to an end. Once they are lost, there is a real risk that most of those research projects will not return and progress towards both net zero and skills targets will be hindered. Welsh universities desperately need £71 million in bridge funding to enable those projects to continue for 12 months and to provide time to develop a more strategic approach to future funding. Ensuring that the UK Government do not overlook research excellence in Wales when initiating new contracts or national facilities will be critical to enabling Wales to continue to deliver the impacts of world-class research and to support the industries of the future.
One of those industries, of course, is renewable energy, which has the potential to create well-paid jobs, reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons and guarantee energy security. With significant generation opportunities along the Welsh coastline in both marine renewables and offshore wind, Wales has real potential to become a world leader in the manufacture of components and in exporting skills and expertise to a growing global market.
The development of marine energy is currently being hindered by the slow route to market for projects. Contracts for difference could play a key role in the development of this technology, so I was disappointed to learn that ringfenced support for tidal stream has been halved from £20 million in the last round to £10 million in the latest. With pre-consented demonstration zones in Wales, such as Morlais in Ynys Môn, depending on securing funding through the scheme to deploy, will the Government explain their rationale for halving the support and set out what steps they are taking to support Wales’s first mover advantage in this technology?
I would like to set out how the nuclear licensed site at Trawsfynydd, which is entirely in public ownership, could be best used in future. Proposals for a national medical isotope centre in Trawsfynydd, known as Project ARTHUR, could be central to the UK Government’s aim of becoming a science and innovation superpower. Despite the importance of medical isotopes as a key pillar of cancer care and as a diagnostic tool, there are real fears about the security of supply because many of the isotope-producing reactors across the globe will be decommissioned in the next decade.
We therefore face the nightmare scenario of having to ration radioisotopes. We cannot leave it to the market to sort this out. It is about more than the rewards from long-term economic growth and long-term security; it necessitates action now. Bangor University argues strongly that securing an accessible supply of radioisotopes for the UK must be at the heart of expanding UK research and development capabilities in this field. Will the Minister therefore update the House as to what progress has been made on the medical radionuclide innovation programme, and on what recent discussions they have had with the Welsh Government about bringing Project ARTHUR to fruition?
Finally, Trawsfynydd is widely recognised as the lead location for the first SMR in the UK, not least because it has the UK’s first site-specific development body up and running in the form of Welsh Government-supported Cwmni Egino. Identifying technologies by the end of this year is therefore critical, as is acknowledging the need to hit the ground running with projects that actually have a chance of being ready for approval within the decade.
There have been many fine words about the need for nuclear to play its part in the energy mix, but since I became a Member of Parliament in 2015 we have been going round in circles discussing the need to move ahead. We have sites identified; Trawsfynydd is the most advanced in terms of decommissioning and is a publicly owned site. With Cwmni Egino as a lead method of bringing forward development, will the Minister consider it—certainly for Traws and possibly also for Wylfa—as being ahead of the game in comparison with Great British Nuclear and a perfect model for innovation? Bringing forward this activity is so critical to the economic development of north-west Wales. I am sure that the Minister will mention GBN in her wind-up, so will she acknowledge that Cwmni Egino and Trawsfynydd are key to successful strategic planning towards net zero?
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is great to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), I will be ultra-parochial: I am going to talk specifically about the funding model in my constituency in relation to public services, and what the Treasury says or does not say about it. The issue, which I will bring up in my Prime Minister’s question on Wednesday and in my meeting with the relevant Minister in the next couple of weeks, is the funding of public services on the Isle of Wight.
Isle of Wight Council is the only island authority in the United Kingdom that does not receive a permanent, consistent uplift in its funding that reflects the additional cost of providing services on an island separated by sea from the mainland and without a fixed link. The “Fair funding review” of 2017, which was signed off by the current Prime Minister when he was in a different job, made clear that it recognised the additional costs associated with providing Government services on the Isle of Wight. It set those costs at a fairly high level, estimating them to be the equivalent of an extra 35 miles for ferry passengers on foot and about 70 miles—the distance from London to Peterborough—for those travelling in a car or lorry.
Since 1989, there have been six major studies of the impact of separation by sea on fair funding and public services on the Island. I shall refer briefly to two of them, the University of Portsmouth model of 2016 and a study commissioned last year by the Government, working with me, to examine the funding settlement for the Island. The University of Portsmouth, in an excellent study for which I thank its academics, confirmed that three separate economic factors were at play in making the provision of local services on the Island more expensive. The first was the lack of spill-over of public goods between the mainland and the Island, the second was the so-called Island premium—the higher prices charged by suppliers on the Island as opposed to the mainland—and the third was the additional costs to the Island that result from physical and perceived dislocation.
Two years ago, backing up and building on that report, the Government—at my request—spent about £50,000 on commissioning LG Futures, a respected local government think-tank, to review the evidence for the “additional costs” argument in relation to the provision of public services on the Island. The Government worked through with the council and me the parameters of what the review—which they had committed to and commissioned—would be investigating. It confirmed the accuracy of every relevant study of the funding of public services on the Island: it confirmed that it cost more to deliver public services there, for the reasons outlined by the University of Portsmouth.
In many ways I am delighted by what has been happening in the past few years, and I want Ministers to hear that. We have had a much better deal from the Government in recent years. Since I became the Member of Parliament for the Island, we have got more than £120 million of additional Government funding, including about £48 million for St Mary’s Hospital—and that does not include the £10 million for the new diagnostics centre, which is wonderful news. We have received £50 million to upgrade the railway and the Ryde railway pier. The work on the pier is under way, as is the work at St Mary’s. We have got £20 million for Isle of Wight College, and £6 million to support shipbuilding in East Cowes. All that provides much better life opportunities and life chances for Islanders, which are what I am here to try to deliver.
However, when it comes to the provision of local government services via Isle of Wight Council, we are lagging behind other islands in the UK, and our need—which has been confirmed by all coherent and responsible academic research into the Island—backs up our argument. I shall be meeting the relevant Minister in the next couple of weeks to discuss that, because the Government have, I am delighted to say, reopened the case for looking at Isle of Wight funding. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will come to the Island in May to talk to the Islands Forum, which I helped to establish along with others, including council leaders in Orkney and, I believe, Wales. I also hope to talk to the Prime Minister about the issue in due course.
I ask Ministers, including those at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Treasury, to look at a fair funding formula for the Island, because this is one of the outstanding issues that have still not been resolved in our efforts to secure a better deal. We have gone a long way towards delivering that better deal for health, shipbuilding, transport and Isle of Wight College, but a fairer funding settlement that takes account of the fact that the Isle of Wight is an island is still eluding us. I should be extremely grateful if Ministers could work with me on that to solve the issue this year.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is good to see you back, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This Budget has been described as being “slightly better” than the previous Prime Minister’s Budget, which crashed the economy. At least during the delivery of this Budget statement we were not watching on our phones as the pound plummeted, but what a low bar to reach above. Nothing says “clutching at straws” like the staged cheering of a “pothole fund”, whose very existence tells us that routine road maintenance has been starved of funds—another example of the managed decline that we have seen after 13 long years of Conservative rule.
This Budget is weak and unambitious. It is a sticking plaster, an attempt to fix mistakes that consecutive Conservative chancellors have made, and it does nothing to address the real problems that people face. What does it give us? We find ourselves facing the biggest drop in living standards on record. The average French family is now a tenth richer and the average German family a fifth richer than their British counterparts. Wages are now lower in real terms than they were 13 years ago. This stalling wage growth has left British workers £11,000 a year worse off. Taxes as a share of GDP are at a 30-year high, which is the equivalent of every household paying £4,600 more tax each year than in 2019-20. The OECD has said that the UK economy is the weakest in the G7. The only other country that is set to have a lower rate of growth and more contraction of its economy is Russia.
Why is this? The Government want to point to international factors such as covid and Ukraine, but those factors do not explain away the unique situation that the UK is facing. Yes, the Conservatives’ Brexit deal has had an impact, but these roots go far deeper. The roots of our economic difficulties go back to austerity in 2010, and the utter chaos and dysfunction at the heart of Government since 2016. The British people are literally paying the price for the internal wars within the Conservative party. Let us be honest: the Conservative party has no strategy and no plan to grow our economy, because the Conservative party no longer knows who it is or what it stands for. We are seeing that again this week as the soap opera continues, and the headlines about what the former Prime Minister did hit the newspapers instead of a real analysis of what is happening to the cost of living crisis.
We see another example when we look at the Conservatives’ desperate attempt to form an economic plan. In January 2020 the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy introduced an industrial strategy that promised five foundations of productivity. That lasted only a year. In the spring of 2021 the Budget abolished the industrial strategy and replaced it with “Build Back Better: our plan for growth”, which contained three core pillars of growth. That lasted less than a year. In February 2022 the Chancellor—now the Prime Minister—abolished the pillars and the foundations, and introduced three priorities for growth. That lasted seven months. In September 2022 the Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), left out the pillars, foundations and priorities in favour of a growth plan—the less said about that, the better. It lasted four months. In January 2023 the new Chancellor brought back the pillars, but managed to increase their number from three to four. So far, that has lasted three months. What an utter farce! No wonder business investment is the lowest in the G7. There have been five plans for growth in one Parliament, and as a result of this incompetence GDP has fallen by 0.2%.
Who are the winners? As usual, the richest 1% gain from a Conservative Budget via the changes to pensions, at a cost of £.1 billion for the rest of the taxpayers. As for the ludicrous claim that this is all about helping the doctors, I gently suggest that if the Government want to help the doctors and get more of them back working for the NHS, they should go and talk to the junior doctors who are currently on strike.
Who are the other winners? Let us have a look at those. Research and development “claim farms” are exploiting the low level of scrutiny of tax reliefs. R&D relief is the largest co-operative tax relief, predicted to cost more than £9 billion by 2026-27. A recent report from the charity TaxWatch revealed that highly profitable finance companies are claiming millions in relief. Boundary-pushing is rife. Fraud and error in R&D totalled more than £1.1 billion in the last three years, and our HMRC is too under-resourced even to look at it properly. The Government were prepared to chase people who were accidentally overpaid in benefits and pensions more than companies that were exploiting the system.
This Budget is a continuation of the pattern of managed decline, and it makes me so angry that our brilliant country is being let down in this way. It is a Budget from a tired, fractious, divided and desperate Government, focused so much on the enemies within and not enough on the real struggles that people out there are facing. It is a Budget with nothing to say on social care, NHS waiting lists or the millions without access to NHS dentists. It is a Budget that fails to learn the lessons of the past, with the only growth we see being in claim farms in R&D relief and in the very richest in society. Our country can be and will be so much better than this when we consign these farcical plans for pillars, foundations and priorities to the past and get in a new Labour Government who will put working people first.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I am delighted that the Chancellor has set aside £4 billion to help families with young children. I am less delighted with how he is choosing to spend it. I am referring to the massive expansion of the 30-hour childcare scheme to include babies from the age of nine months. The stated aim of this policy is to get parents back into work and to grow the economy, but unfortunately it will probably fail on both counts. It will not get parents back into work, and the evidence of that comes from the current 30-hour offer for three and four-year-olds, which has had limited success, with only 40% of eligible families using their full entitlement. That is not surprising, because it is not free and it is inflexible, being restricted to only 38 weeks a year and between 9 am and 3 pm—not many jobs fit those requirements.
Polling shows that a great many parents would understandably prefer to look after their children themselves. A recent IFS study showed that free childcare does not have a significant impact on parents’ childcare and work decisions. If these are the problems with the three to four-year-old offer, they will be even more acute with the nine months to two years offer. We are also forgetting that families in this country keep so little of what they earn that it is often not worth going back to work even if the childcare is cheaper.
The Treasury and others keep repeating the mantra that British parents face the highest childcare costs in the western world. That is not actually true. The absolute costs of childcare in the UK are similar to those in other countries. The problem is that British families’ childcare costs are a higher proportion of families’ net income than in comparable countries. So the problem is not the childcare costs; it is the low net income. That is the result of taking so much money off parents in tax, in comparison with other countries, combined with meagre child benefits, also in comparison with other countries.
The root of this problem is our unique individual taxation system, which does not recognise households with children and results in British families paying three, four, five, or even 10 times the amount of tax as families in other countries. It particularly penalises single-earner households or households with a large difference in earnings between the two partners. Under this policy, for example, a mother might return to work because the childcare costs are now reduced. She might earn a £20,000 gross salary, out of which she has to pay taxation, national insurance, pension contributions, student loan repayments and travel costs, while her universal credit and childcare top-ups could be withdrawn. Out of her gross salary of a little under £1,700 a month, she will be lucky to keep £290. That is an effective tax rate of nearly 80%. Some people will return to work for that, but many will not because of what they are losing in time with their children, so I do not expect take-up to be high.
Will this policy grow the economy? It might increase GDP if more people return to the employment market, but what does it mean in real terms for real people’s lives? Will GDP per capita grow? I think that is highly unlikely, because when mothers return to work it creates more low-paying jobs in childcare and elderly care—important but low-paying jobs—which increases the gender pay gap. This has happened in Denmark, for example, which has three times the gender pay gap that we have here in the UK.
I do not believe the policy will see mums flooding back to work and I do not think it will grow the economy in meaningful terms, but even if I am wrong, I still believe it is the wrong policy because it is the wrong policy for children. What is best for baby in the early years? The bond between mother and child is probably the strongest human relationship there is. This is not just a soppy feeling; it is a highly evolved survival mechanism, and strong attachment in the early years pays dividends in later life. There are many great people in the childcare sector, but no one replaces mummy.
It is heartbreaking when mothers feel they have no choice but to leave their babies in childcare from a very young age because of the financial imperative. Yes, there is a cost of living problem, and many women want to work for all sorts of reasons and should absolutely be supported to do so, but the issue for many families is not the cost of childcare per se, any more than it is the cost of food or energy; it is the inability to live on one income when children are young. This is what separates many women from their children: not choice, but tragic necessity.
The Treasury thinks the answer to our financial challenges is to send more mothers to work. I think the answer is to support all families in the early years to give parents a choice. We have £4 billion for this new policy and £4 billion for existing policies, so why not use this to fund a move to household taxation and to increase child benefits? Why not spend that £6,500 a year per child in a different way, to give parents the choice of how they spend it, perhaps on formal childcare, on informal childcare or on spending fewer hours in the workplace?
Elite feminism might say that motherhood is drudgery and inferior to paid work outside the home, but that is only true if we believe that status and meaning derive principally from our salary and status in the workplace. “I wish I’d spent more time in the office instead of with my small children”, said no one on their deathbed ever. Those making these policies think of women with high-flying, highly paid careers, and of course those women should be supported to stay in work and maintain their careers, but that is not most women. Most women have jobs, not careers. As Dan Hitchens wrote in UnHerd last week, those advocating for these policies
“assume that taking your little one to Wriggle and Rhyme at the public library is an unutterable burden, whereas stacking shelves or updating spreadsheets is a liberation of the human spirit.”
It is fundamentally un-Conservative to spend £4 billion separating parents from their babies in the pursuit of marginal gains to GDP. We offer tax breaks and incentives to reduce costs for companies investing in the economy. Why not offer the same to families nurturing the source of our future economic success? I commend the amount of money being spent on the early years, but please can it be used to offer parents a choice and babies the best start in life?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind the House that the wind-ups will start no later than 9.40 pm, and that everybody who has taken part in the debate will be expected to be present for them.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I will keep my comments tightly focused on how I see the Budget impacting my constituents. When I hear from them in advice surgeries, I hear that their lives are not better now than they were 13 years ago. In fact, wages are lower now than they were then. It was telling that when the Chancellor stood up and delivered his Budget statement, it was against the backdrop of quite widely supported industrial action across many different sectors, so if he wants to see a high-wage, high-growth economy, perhaps the best place to start would be to give our public sector workers the pay rise they deserve.
I was pleased that a lot of emphasis in the Budget was on education. However, I want to make a few points about where I think the Chancellor may have been getting it slightly wrong. My constituency has two universities in it—Lancaster University and the University of Cumbria—but the Budget did not mention students. I am currently surveying students across my constituency, and I am hearing from them how they are struggling with the cost of living crisis. There was nothing in the Budget for students facing the cost of living crisis. Many of them are working two or three jobs in order to be able to live and to pay their rent. Many of them are in the private rented sector, but there was nothing in the Budget to improve conditions for people who are privately renting.
Looking at education for younger children, I am privileged and lucky to have so many wonderful rural primary schools in my constituency. I recently visited Scorton Primary School, whose headteacher is struggling because there is no school hall, which means that there is no space for the children to eat lunch, so they have to eat at their desks. There is no school kitchen, so the school lunches are brought in by taxi. The idea that a primary school such as Scorton is going to be able to make a decision to provide the wraparound childcare offer proposed by the Chancellor, when the school budget is so tight that it is having to look at making savings elsewhere, is frankly for the birds.
I also saw children from another fantastic primary school my constituency, Abbeystead Primary School. I was visiting it as part of a visit with a company called Broadband for the Rural North, which I am sure you are familiar with, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that its representatives are coming to Westminster in a few weeks’ time and I am glad that you will be able to meet them with me. This community benefit society was sick of waiting for the big players to deliver fibre broadband to our rural communities, and it decided in 2012 that it could wait no longer. Starting in Quernmore, a village I am sure many Members have not heard of, it started something big. It is now rolling out superfast broadband, including to very isolated farmhouses, which just goes to show that the standard size does not fit all.
I found the Budget to be quite deaf to a lot of rural issues. When it comes to things such as transport, I feel that my constituency is losing out. HS2 suddenly will not reach the north of England, and the money we have been promised to fix potholes is a fraction of what was taken away by the cut to the roads budget. Active transport has also been cut, even though it is good for both people and the planet. It is something about which many of my constituents feel incredibly strongly, but there was no mention of it in the Budget.
I spoke about the issues of poverty on a recent visit to North Lancashire citizens advice bureau. Poverty was not mentioned at all in the Budget, but it affects a growing number of our constituents. For people who are on the brink of homelessness, who are unable to feed their children or who are in constant fear of being evicted by their landlord during these cycles of poverty, there was nothing in the Budget to reassure them that they will be any better off.
Instead, people on universal credit were promised more sanctions. There is no evidence that sanctions have any impact on encouraging people. All they do is make life more difficult when people know they do not have the money, so they have to rely on food banks. I give credit to all the volunteers who work in food banks across my constituency, but why do we have to have food banks? Why are they now so accepted? I find it shocking. I support my local food banks, I ran the London marathon for them and I will do what I can to support my community, but food banks should not exist. It feels like they are now an established part of our society’s structure. We fundraise for them all over the place, and we have donation boxes in all our supermarkets, but I find it completely unacceptable that we have normalised poverty in that way. Poverty was not mentioned in the Budget. Frankly, I feel incredibly let down.
I would have liked to say more about childcare. Frankly, if we are increasingly to rely on private childminders without new state provision, prices will be pushed up and demand will outstrip supply, which could create a huge childcare crisis for many parents. People are already having to put their child’s name down before they are born in order to be confident of getting a nursery place. Without that supply, it is difficult to know how working parents will be able to rely on this measure.
Investment zones have been heralded as levelling up all parts of the United Kingdom, but how can the Government suggest they are doing that when there are only 12 new investment zones? There is nothing for Lancashire, as we do not fall into any of the zones.
Frankly, this is a sticking-plaster Budget that does nothing to address the needs of my constituents and does nothing to address poverty in this country. I think it is a terrible Budget, and I hope the Chancellor will look again at his priorities.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
This Budget is about cementing stability in the economy after the turmoil of the pandemic, the lockdowns and Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Halving inflation is rightly the Government’s No. 1 priority, and we are forecast not just to meet that goal but to surpass it significantly this year, driving down costs for families and businesses.
The actions the Budget takes to maintain the energy price guarantee for a further three months, to remove the prepayment meter premium charge, to maintain the 5p cut in fuel duty, to significantly extend free childcare and to freeze the duty on a pub pint with a Brexit pub guarantee are all being delivered because this Government understand the need for immediate measures to help tackle the cost of living. And this Government understand that, to expand the economy with non-inflationary growth, we need to increase our productive capacity.
I am glad to confirm to the Chancellor that Stoke-on-Trent is exactly the kind of high-potential regional city with the capacity to expand an excellent science and technology base, including our world-leading local ceramics sector and a burgeoning new digital gaming sector, spurred on by our investment in gigabit digital connectivity.
I am delighted that the Budget confirms Stoke-on-Trent’s much anticipated levelling-up partnership. This new partnership will help unblock the barriers to the levelling up of opportunities and productivity, delivering the improvements our city needs. It unlocks access to part of a £400 million fund, on top of the wider investment we have already secured, including the £56 million levelling-up fund investment that is now being delivered, which will see the repurposing of the historical Crown works in my constituency.
I am also excited by the unique partnership secured by Stoke-on-Trent City Council, under the excellent leadership of Councillor Abi Brown, with Homes England. It is fantastic news that 3,000 homes will be delivered and that the city’s economy will gain £400 million from unlocking this new development, particularly on more challenging derelict brownfield sites. Stoke-on-Trent has a strong record of delivering housing and, with Government support, delivered more than the average London borough last year, with 100% on brownfield sites.
I also welcome the significant extension of tax relief for firms investing in plant and machinery. That will make a big difference to manufacturers, incentivising them to invest more in improved energy-efficiency measures and increased productivity. It will mean a tax cut of up to 25p for every £1 that a company invests, putting £25 billion back into the economy over the next three years.
I am pleased to say that, since 2010, the gross value added of the ceramics sector has doubled in real terms, but it is not easy sailing and the sector is not always neatly compatible with the support schemes that are set up to help industry. I am thinking especially of the 97% of the ceramics industry that are SMEs, which have often not had the capacity to secure support, or have been excluded from the scale of support seen in other sectors. The ceramics sector is vital to our future economy, with almost every sector having supply chain links. There are advanced ceramic components in high-tech materials that are securing the future, from healthcare to aerospace. It is a sector with huge growth potential, and in which UK industry must take a global lead.
Ceramics works alongside other advanced manufacturing in Stoke-on-Trent. I look forward to seeing Goodwin International in the supply chain for small modular reactors, for example. This will help with decarbonisation. It is a hugely welcome step for nuclear now to be on a level playing field with renewables when it comes to investment incentives.
The ceramics sector itself has, so far, invested £600 million in decarbonisation, becoming more gas-efficient by recycling heat, and so on, but there are sadly no immediate viable options to convert the entire sector from gas to electric or hydrogen in the next decade. This reality needs to be acknowledged. It is certainly better for firms to be gas firing efficiently in the UK, and working on further decarbonisation improvements, than offshoring production to countries with lesser environmental protections.
It is also imperative that the Restoring Your Railway fund leads to tangible results, including a restored Meir station, which could be open as early as 2024 with Government support, and a reopened Stoke-Leek line to serve deprived neighbourhoods with notably low rates of car ownership and to support better access to jobs and skills.
Without local transport network improvements, HS2 will only ever be of limited benefit. For far too much of Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, the current plans for phase 2 mean huge amounts of pain for very little gain. I welcome the pause because phase 2, as currently proposed, would be likely to result in the further diminishing of rail capacity, all at the cost of providing superfast HS2 services that do not connect to the places to which people want to go. It is important that we use this opportunity to consider whether the money for phase 2 could be better invested in upgrading the existing network and further enhancing the local network, as through the Restoring Your Railway fund.
The Budget is another step in the right direction for unleashing further innovation from our excellent advanced manufacturing base. It maintains the momentum for levelling Stoke-on-Trent back up to where it belongs, as a world leader in industry, science and technology.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
This Budget is quite easy to characterise. Under the Tories we have had a lost decade, and under this Government we are sadly looking at another. Since the Conservatives came to office in 2010, we have seen stagnant living standards, stretched public services, falling investment and the complete absence of a long-term, coherent vision for our country. The real question we need to ask ourselves tonight is, “Will the Budget change any of this?” The answer is a resounding no.
According to the OBR, real incomes are forecast to fall almost to where they were a decade ago, which is the shocking legacy of those sitting on the Conservative Benches. What is more, the hit to living standards over the past two years is the largest since records began. Last week, the Chancellor lauded Britain’s negative growth forecast this year as if it were something to be celebrated. Of course, the Government will blame it on external factors, but the reality is that the UK will be the weakest economy in the G7 this year and the only one with negative growth.
When we talk about a lost decade, it is easy to think of that in an abstract way, but we should remember the reality of it for the people of this country. It means more Portsmouth families struggling to heat their homes; more local businesses battling just to survive; more children in my city hungry and in poverty; more patients at the Queen Alexandra Hospital in pain and stuck on ever-growing waiting lists; and more Portsmouth people struggling to make ends meet.
The real tragedy is that our country has so much to offer. I see that at first hand in Portsmouth, a city fizzing full of potential. It just needs a bit of support to unlock it. This Budget represented a chance for the Government to do that, but instead they have decided to continue papering over the cracks of 13 years of economic failure. Portsmouth and the country were crying out for a long-term plan last week, yet in the midst of a cost of living crisis the only rabbit the Chancellor pulled out of his hat was a handout for the richest 1% and their pension pots.
Judging by this Budget, one would be forgiven for thinking that the crisis facing our NHS had been solved. Sadly, that is certainly not the case. Thirteen years of Conservative mismanagement has left the NHS without the doctors and nurses it needs, and patients are paying the price. People in Portsmouth are finding it impossible to get a GP or dentist appointment, or an operation, when they need one, and nothing the Chancellor said last week will help. It is true that the longer the Conservatives are in power, the longer patients have to wait.
From hearing the Chancellor’s comments last week, one would also be forgiven for thinking that the climate crisis was over, but the sad reality is that the UK is being left behind in the global race for green good jobs. Our investment in green energies and industries is now five times less than that of Germany, and roughly half that of France and the USA. We urgently need a Government who understand the scale of this problem and can make Britain a clean energy superpower, to create jobs, cut bills, boost energy security and accelerate our economy to net zero.
To be fair, not everything in this Budget was bad; I am thinking, in particular, of the policies the Government decided to take from Labour. I was pleased to see the cap on energy bills extended and the scrapping of the extra charges for those on prepayment energy meters. It is now time for the Government to copy at least one more of Labour’s policies. According to the OBR, the Government left £10.4 billion on the table through holes in the windfall tax. It is simply not right that oil and gas companies continue to enjoy astronomical profits at the expense of working people. There are no more excuses; the Government need finally to bring in a proper windfall tax.
In conclusion, in every town and city in our country, in every community, there is so much on offer, but 13 years of Tory economic mismanagement has left us lagging behind. Our country was crying out for a long-term plan this week, but instead we saw a Budget without any ambition and without any vision for Portsmouth or for Britain. It is time we had a Government who deliver on the potential in a way that Portsmouth and our country deserve.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan). I welcome the Budget from this Chancellor, as it is a sensible, forward-looking Budget that will give us the economic stability we need. It will continue to protect my constituents and all of our constituents from the global headwinds referred to by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), as we have done throughout the Parliament. Through covid, the war in Ukraine and the energy price crisis, we have been looking after our constituents and protecting them from the worst ravages of inflation. The Budget also offers a viable plan to energise growth, not least in science and technology, the theme of today’s debate, to which I will turn in a moment.
Before I do so, I wish to welcome a few of the specific measures the Chancellor announced last Wednesday, starting with the extension of 30 hours’ childcare all the way down, ultimately, to those as young as nine months. That will be welcomed by my constituents. It offers young families choice—the choice I want to see. It is not about compulsion or forcing anybody to go back into work; it offers people the choice to do that, just as we have done in relation to a higher age. We continue to bring that further down. So many schools in my constituency have a nursery attached to the reception, and this works well for getting children introduced to that concept, as and when the parents are ready for that.
I also welcome the extension of the energy price guarantee, at £2,500, for a further three months. We heard from the forecasts that inflation would fall this year and I very much hope that will continue. Obviously, it depends on global oil and gas prices, which are what caused inflation to rise in the first place. As it falls, people will start to feel the benefits and we will see bills fall below that level later in the year. I also welcome, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South did, the fixing of the prepayment meter premium that a number of my constituents have suffered from.
In a constituency such as mine, so many people rely on their cars to get to work, so I welcome the freeze in fuel duty and the extension of the 5p cut that I and others lobbied for last year. It has saved drivers, on average, £200 since we introduced that cut and it is the right thing to do for constituencies such as mine.
I had some concerns about the corporation tax rise, but they have been broadly tempered by the full expensing announcement. I am a former deputy chair of the Backbench Treasury Committee, along with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) and Baroness Noakes. We did a lot of thinking about this and put those cases to the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor, as we have to other Ministers since, including the Financial Secretary, who is in her place. Full expensing is a positive move. It is vital that we put in place measures enabling businesses to thrive. In the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor also announced major reforms to business rates. That work needs to be continued. It will make a huge difference to Newcastle-under-Lyme’s high street, so let us get on with it.
On the £200 million to deal with potholes across the country, with £4.5 million of that for Staffordshire, the county council can be assured that I will be lobbying to make sure that Newcastle-under-Lyme gets its fair share of that. We need to make sure that, when that work is done, it is done better than it has been by Amey in the past. The swimming pool support fund of £60 million will be welcomed by Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, under the leadership of Simon Tagg, to keep costs and prices low, at Jubilee2, in particular.
On science and technology, I welcome the certainty on Horizon that the Secretary of State gave earlier. Contrary to some of the claims from the Opposition, the EU has been responsible for the delays in agreeing this, because it wanted to use Horizon as a negotiating chip. Now that we have the Windsor framework, I think we can look forward, but the Opposition cheered on the EU in that complaint, just as they did throughout Brexit.
It is vital that we invest in the technologies and jobs of the future, so I welcome the £370 million of Government investment that the Secretary of State announced the other week. I also welcome the private investment we are seeing, for example, with Moderna’s £150 million investment in a vaccine centre in the UK, and all the various investments I see at the Keele science park in my constituency and the Keele medical school, on the same campus. It would be a great location for a new dental school, which I have been championing, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South.
The Select Committee on Science and Technology, on which I am proud to sit, has been all over the country looking at how we recover from covid and how we raise both public and private investment. However, it is important to note that we have a vibrant sector already. The UK tech sector is No.1 in Europe, No. 3 in the world and last year it raised more than France and Germany combined.
I come to the lifetime allowance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) said, it is a long-running tradition that sometimes a Budget is well received on the day but falls apart afterwards. This is the first time I can recall that happening to the Opposition, with their cynical, shameless opportunism. We delivered the exact policy they called for—I have heard this a few times on the Opposition side—the exact one that the shadow Health Secretary called for in The Guardian, the exact one that doctors in Newcastle-under-Lyme asked us for. However, the politics of envy overtook the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor took a decision to denounce it, even as the British Medical Association was welcoming it.
We heard that Labour would like to keep the policy just for doctors, but the reality is that the cap is pushing all sorts of workers into early retirement—headteachers, police chiefs, senior armed forces personnel, senior armed forces clinicians, air traffic controllers and prison governors, and many in the private sector, too, who would be getting less generous pensions than some of those in the public sector, from the same notional size of pension pot. These public servants will be getting generous pensions, but those pensions will be taxed, in many cases at 40%. I believe, contrary to the politics of envy, that it is vital that we retain their services for longer in the workplace, because that experience means more productivity and more growth for this country. Of course, while they stay in the workplace, they will be paying more income tax—it is a net gain for the country overall. Labour’s policy would damage productivity and growth and contribute to a crisis in public sector retirement. To be honest, I would not be surprised if Labour quietly scrapped it before the election as it realises that the politics of envy will not work.
In conclusion, I really welcome the Government’s Budget. I welcome what the Chancellor has said and what the Budget will do for places such as Newcastle-under-Lyme as we continue to level up and to get the benefits of Government spending. I commend the Budget to the House.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), although I gently remind him that it was the UK that left Horizon Europe, not the other way round.
We can, however, probably agree that innovation and science are critical to building strong and resilient national and regional economies, and our universities play a key role in fuelling that vital innovation. I could cite many examples, but I would particularly pick out the Whittle Laboratory at Cambridge, which is spearheading cutting-edge work on improving the aerothermal performance of turbomachines. Those machines are the principal technology in the world’s energy-conversion processes, and improving their efficiency is key to reducing the environmental impact of power generation and aviation.
London Economics recently calculated—it said this in a report launched on the estate this evening—that Cambridge University’s net total impact on the UK economy is a staggering £29.8 billion annually, supporting more than 86,000 jobs across the UK. A high percentage of that economic impact is generated by companies spun out from, or closely associated with, the university. That has been made possible by the university’s long-term strategy of investment in innovation and commercialisation activities over decades.
However, universities and businesses cannot do these things alone. There is a vital role for Government in creating the right environment and culture for innovation and entrepreneurialism to flourish. That includes a strategic vision, stability, sustained investment and a tax regime that incentivises innovation and knowledge creation. However, I am afraid that the Government have fallen well short on those criteria in recent years. We have had nine changes of Science Minister in five years, and 26 months of Horizon uncertainty. The UK has lost out on investment and research projects across the country. Scientists have left international projects or have been told to relocate. The Royal Society—this point was also raised in a recent review by Paul Nurse—has strongly urged the Government to deliver on their pledge to associate to Horizon Europe, as that is vital to restoring the confidence of global research talent and investors in building their futures here in the UK.
Frankly, the Government have not put their money where their mouth is. Despite repeated promises to UK scientists that funding has been set aside and ringfenced for UK research and development, £1.6 billion that was previously earmarked for Horizon Europe association, or the alternative, has been taken back by the Treasury, and the science community is deeply disappointed by that substantial loss.
As for the tax regime, we witnessed a complete botch of the R&D tax credit system only a few months ago in the autumn statement. Leading experts queued up to express their exasperation that such a backward move would hinder growth for the early-stage and research-intensive tech companies that are key to the UK’s future. According to auditor BDO, it would have meant support for loss-making companies dropping from an effective 33.4% subsidy to an 18.6% subsidy.
The Government did try to clear up the mess in last week’s Budget, but all the damage has by no means been repaired. SMEs and start-ups are still worse off than they would have been before the changes that were made in the autumn. The Government are still cutting support for R&D in start-ups and small businesses—to the tune of £2 billion over the next five years, according to one estimate.
Further, the justification for the cuts—fraud and misuse —has not been addressed, and the high bar of 40% R&D expenditure leaves thousands of small firms out of scope. Start-ups spending below the threshold would, on average, receive £100,000 less in support under the new scheme—equivalent to a 30% to 40% reduction in funding. The threshold will also penalise companies that are scaling up as they begin to spend money on more mainstream business expenses.
The funding gap between early and late-stage businesses is simply too large. The bottom line is that most start-ups will still find it much harder to claim R&D tax credits than they would have before the Government took over. In the words of Russ Shaw, CBE, founder of Global Tech Advocates, the R&D tax rebates are “short-sighted” and will “simply not suffice”.
I am afraid that this partial, half-hearted U-turn has not convinced our leading entrepreneurs and knowledge creators that the Government are serious about science and innovation or about the economic growth it stimulates. Indeed, the OBR has confirmed that the UK will be the weakest economy in the G7 this year and the only one that will see negative growth. No other G20 economy, apart from Russia, is forecast to shrink this year.
This Budget was the chance to repair some of the damage and to give us a fighting chance in the global race for advancement in science and technology. Instead, I am afraid that we have had more tinkering and short-termism. Now, more than ever, we need a Government who are firmly committed to generating a green, tech-driven recovery for the nation and to unlocking our potential as a real science and innovation superpower.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I rise to support last week’s excellent Budget, but also to provide some context about why it is so important for my constituency and why our local offer is so good.
As we know, Bracknell Forest is the silicon valley of the Thames valley. It has a strong and vibrant economy and can boast a number of world-class companies. Some 150 international companies have their offices in Bracknell, including Syngenta, 3M, Fujitsu, Honda, Waitrose, Panasonic, Hitachi, Dell and many others. Why is that important? Bracknell can act as a template for what can be achieved elsewhere in the country, because business and the way we live personally are integrated so well. It is also home to fantastic infrastructure and businesses, and it is vital that those companies remain in Bracknell as we go forward.
Well, so what? Last week, the Chancellor announced the delivery of 12 new investment zones in the west midlands, Greater Manchester, the north-east, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, the east midlands, Teesside and Liverpool, with at least one in each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That totals 11, and my contention is that Berkshire—Bracknell—could be a perfect candidate for the 12th. With the Minister in her place, I am going to push for that and to state the case right now.
To qualify for £80 million of support for a range of interventions, including skills, infrastructure, tax relief and business rates retention, each area will need to successfully identify 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.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 838.]
Well, guess what? We have lots of innovation clusters right now in Bracknell. We have a close tie-up locally with Reading University. We also have Syngenta at Jealott's Hill, which is hopefully about to become a global hub for agricultural R&D, with huge investment and 3,000 jobs. It is a no-brainer—we have all the ingredients locally to make a really good case.
Bracknell has full employment. It has one of the best-performing healthcare trusts in the country. Forty of 40 schools are rated good or outstanding. We have fantastic leisure facilities and open spaces. We have one of the top five average incomes of any borough in the country. We also have the Lexicon shopping centre. What more do we need? However, the important thing is that Bracknell is run by a Conservative council, and that council is absolutely focused on local investment, technology, infrastructure and full employment. The offer is really good locally.
Bracknell is a hub for R&D, and more than 200 organisations contribute to R&D in the constituency, in addition to the companies that are based there. Last week’s Budget labelled economic growth as its core objective, and it achieves that for many of Bracknell’s companies, especially in R&D. The Budget also promotes strong economic growth, exciting new job opportunities and stable local economies.
To prove the point, 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 spent. That is a huge tax rebate. When I talked to a boss of one of our Formula 1 teams based in the UK a couple of weeks ago, he told me that that is worth millions of pounds to him every year. It is worth millions of pounds to SMEs right across the UK. The UK has to be a place for R&D, for AI, for investment, for tech, for innovation—and we have just the place in Bracknell.
Before I finish, I have some concerns to raise. First, the way the R&D tax credits work is they are a net credit after tax. In other words, credit is taxed at the prevailing rate of corporation tax; if CT goes from 19% to 25%, the value of the credit goes down. My plea to the Minister is to please leave corporation tax as low as it can be, for the benefit of all of us.
Secondly, the type of business that will benefit in Bracknell will be life sciences businesses. Given the significant up-front development and—almost by definition —research costs, the challenge for these businesses locally is that pre-revenue and pre-profit tax credits may be of limited value, even if carried forward. Therefore, we need additional incentivisation to improve that.
Thirdly, we need a suitably qualified high-tech workforce to carry out R&D. We have that in Bracknell. Alongside tax credits, we need to ensure the availability of skilled labour. I cannot stress enough that in parts of the country, particularly the south-east and Berkshire, where we are lucky enough to have full employment, we need to do more to generate more labour. Therefore, the schemes announced last week to bring the over-50s and other people back into the workplace are absolutely brilliant.
I commend the Budget. It will entice people back into work and incentivise more R&D, which can only benefit Berkshire and Bracknell and elsewhere across the UK. Finally, why not an investment hub in Bracknell too?
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I am grateful for the chance to speak in this Budget debate and to give voice to the concerns of the many people in Newport West who are finding it tough and wanted a proper plan for growth and opportunity.
The Chancellor’s Budget could have been a unique opportunity to unlock Britain’s promise and potential and to break away, finally, from over a decade of decline and decay. Instead, the Tories have decided to continue papering over the cracks of 13 years of Conservative economic failure. That was exemplified by a handout to the pension pots of the richest 1%, with no regard for the livelihoods and wellbeing of my constituents in Newport West or others around the country who want and need real change and real investment in their communities.
Growth was downgraded in this Tory Budget, but Labour will not allow us to keep bumping along this path of managed decline. I welcome our mission to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, as set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). That way, we will create the good jobs and productivity growth across every part of our country that our people are crying out for. Let us be clear: where this Conservative Government have basically given up and thrown in the towel, Labour will build a better Britain.
Despite all the claims from the Chancellor, the OBR downgraded the UK’s long-term growth forecast, with downgrades in all the last three years of the forecast period. The OECD has now confirmed that the UK will be the weakest economy in the G7 this year—a ringing endorsement of 13 years of Tory government. The OBR also confirms that the hit to living standards over the past two years is the largest since comparable records began. Let us just think about that for a minute. It means that the average French family are now one tenth richer than their British counterparts, while the average German family are one fifth richer.
Wages are now lower in real terms than they were 13 years ago. The independent OBR has confirmed that real wages fell last year and will fall further this year. That will mean that, under this Conservative Government, real weekly wages are now expected to remain below 2008 levels until 2026.
This Government have let down the people of Newport West, Wales and our United Kingdom. This Budget was a wasted opportunity that delivered a tax cut for the richest and nothing for the many. It continued a Conservative agenda of delay and decline. The only way forward is to change course, to deliver for our people and to move forward with a Labour Government, and the sooner the better.
I want to conclude by talking about real people who have been directly affected by this Government’s careless attitude to financial matters. Dawn Jones is a 76-year-old pensioner living alone in Newport West. She had to take out a retirement plan mortgage some years ago and was making interest-only payments of £200 per month. However, thanks to the previous Prime Minister and Chancellor crushing the economy, she is now paying over £500 per month. She is a pensioner. How can she afford that?
Dawn is now at her wits’ end wondering how she will make the repayments. She cannot afford to put the heating on and has been having to wear three or four layers of clothing throughout the winter. When it got really cold she had to use hot water bottles. She finishes her heartrending email by saying:
“The Tories do not live in the real world, they have no idea how most of us live.”
I completely agree with Dawn.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
We are speaking today about science and technology, but I want to speak first about some of the important issues raised in the Budget, starting with the pension changes. They were made to get Mr and Mrs Jones’s hip replacements done, or to get someone’s tumour removed. They will get the consultant in the operating theatre and each of us on the road to recovery when we need it—and they will do it immediately. If the change had been made on a sector-specific basis, I believe it could have taken much longer. We were all young and struggling once, but young doctors’ future is bright—so bright that they will complain in 20 years’ time that they want to put more than £1 million in their pensions—so I suggest that they get off the picket line, ask for a sensible pay rise and start to earn their stripes.
On childcare, I am a social conservative, so I believe that the best people to look after the children are mum, dad, nana, grandad—family. I know that it is tough for many out there; I know that some have no choice. I am judging no one on their choices or the position that they find themselves in. I also know that the Chancellor wants to help, but I think that part of the £4 billion could be used to provide some choice for parents by giving them the option to stay at home or go to work.
I am sure that we all think we have important jobs—especially in this place—but we should never devalue the job of being a great parent. When I was bringing my children up, I was always told, “Spend time with your kids when they’re young, or you’ll be forced to spend time with them when they’re older”, meaning in the headmaster’s office, with the social worker, with the police or with the judge if they stray. We do not want that for any child, so let us do all that we can to embrace family life. It works, and it is proven, so let us do it.
Doncaster is not necessarily the first place that someone thinks of when they think of science and technology, but it needs to be if levelling up is ever going to work, and I think that it is close—really close. If we are helped by the Government, we have an opportunity to get Boeing in Doncaster, to get hybrid air vehicles in Doncaster, to get the advanced manufacturing and research centre in Doncaster.
Somehow, along the way, Doncaster and South Yorkshire lost their industry—mainly because of strikes. I grew up with strikes and saw the damage that they did. I saw the jobs go. That is why I am no supporter of strikes. But we now have an opportunity to be leaders again. In the centenary year of the Flying Scotsman being built in Doncaster, how great would it be to have the University of Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre open a new innovation site in Don Valley?
Although 2022 was not a good year for Doncaster, with the loss of our airport, maybe 2023 will be the start of a new revolution. Who knows? Maybe we can get not only Boeing aircraft flying in and out of our airport when we get it open again, but Boeing manufacturing in Doncaster. The investment zones announced for South Yorkshire will benefit from £80 million of tax breaks and should entice the investment that we need.
Why can Doncaster not be part of the nuclear story through SMRs? Why can Don Valley not be part of the carbon capture story? Those industries will all benefit from this Budget, and I want them all in Doncaster. “Growth” and “investment” are the words of this Budget, and I want them there. If we can land that, the children of Doncaster will have a future—a future where quality jobs are available right where they live, in a city where they can bring up their families and their parents can help with childcare, and they can reciprocate later in life by looking after their ageing parents. That would mean an end to fractured families with hundreds of miles separating them.
There was lots in this Budget that the Opposition have tried to denounce, but we all know that the Conservative side of the House earns and the Labour side spends. The Conservative side understands its people and where they work; it understands the value of work; it understands the balance between achieving net zero and killing our towns and cities in a competition of who wants to be the greenest; it understands the value of education, skills and increased productivity, rather than just opening our borders.
No one has shouted loudly enough for Doncaster. The people have only ever heard that they are left behind and deprived, and that it is always the Tories’ fault. Well, they do not hear that rubbish from me; they hear only that if they try, try, try, they cannot help but achieve, achieve, achieve. Excuses will always get us nowhere. Excuses over the last 60 years from a Labour-run authority have got Doncaster nowhere—look at what happened to our airport, and all the excuses from the authority on why it could not use its devolved powers.
Things are changing. Doncaster is great because its people are great, but it could do so much better. Yes, our city could be so much better, and under this Government, it will be better. With this Budget, we will get through the cost of living crisis, get a future for our next generation, and make saving our planet work for us, not against us. The future is now bright for the first time in 60 years, but that is only because we have a Conservative from Doncaster in this place, and it would be even brighter with two more. I will vote for the Budget. I thank the Government for the £20 million and the new direction that the levelling-up partnership will bring to my city, Doncaster.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and to disagree with nearly every word uttered from his lips. It is clear to working people and hard-pressed families in my Weaver Vale constituency that last week’s Budget offered them little in the midst of this cost of living crisis, and that point has been echoed right across these Opposition Benches.
We have to ask ourselves the fundamental questions. Thirteen years on, are people in our constituencies better off? Are houses—genuinely affordable houses and social houses—being built? Are schools being resourced adequately? Are they being rebuilt? Are the 40 wonderful hospitals that the Government claim they are going to build being built? The answer to all those questions is no, no, and no. After 13 years, we have sticking-plaster politics. We have no growth and taxation at a 70-year high. People in my constituency and in others up and down the land look at their mortgage bills, particularly those who are remortgaging, and they think there is a nearly £2,000 tax upon their hard-pressed shoulders.
I spoke to many of my constituents over the weekend, asking, “What did you think of the Budget?” It was the chatter in cafés and on the buses—the buses that run, of course; the buses that have not been cut. I asked, “Do you feel helped?” They said no. They decried that huge tax giveaway to less than 1% in our society, including very wealthy pensioners. In fact, it is a great way to avoid inheritance tax. That is well documented by people more in the know than I am.
Was it a Budget for people? Was it a Budget for growth? Was it a Budget to turbocharge the green economy? Again the answer is no, no, no. It was a failure, and that failure we can measure not just in figures, but in people’s purses and wallets, which are empty. People have referred to food banks. Food banks are a growth industry, and that is shameful. My good friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who is no longer in her place, spoke about that. Our mission in this place should be to ensure that we do not see food banks and that people, particularly those on the Government side, do not use them as a photo opportunity, standing in front of them with a great big smile on their face. It is shameful.
Was it a Budget that increased people’s wages? I think there was only one passing reference to people’s wages. As Members have pointed out, the figures are there to see. The OBR says that wages are expected to fall by 5.7% over the next two years—the largest fall since records began. Is that something to be proud of? Absolutely not, and it is a fact. It is not me, a Labour politician, saying that; it is the OBR, set up by the very Government we face today. It is simply not good enough.
What about public services in the Chancellor’s Budget? Did it re-resource our local authorities to fill the potholes? Absolutely not. More importantly, what about adult social care and children’s social care? Did it talk about the most vulnerable in our society? Absolutely not. There was hardly a word in that regard. From our postbags, Members from all parts of the House are aware of the people who cannot get operations, including elective surgery and serious operations for cancer. More than 7 million are now waiting. Did the Budget deal with that? Absolutely not—it is a resounding no, yet again.
In conclusion, I look forward to the day when the people get an opportunity to deliver hope and to look forward to something better, and when the next generation can get higher wages and better opportunities. The only way that will happen is if this Government step aside, sooner rather than later, face the wonderful electorate, and we get rid of every last one of them.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
There was an extraordinary omission in last Wednesday’s Budget: absolutely nothing to deal with the crisis in our public services, which is nowhere clearer than in health and social care. Every year, I hold an annual community consultation, giving my constituents the opportunity to say what priorities I should be taking up in this place and what the Government should be focused on. Over the 13 years that this Government have been in power, health and care has been a growing concern, and this year almost one in three said that it was by far the biggest issue for them—but clearly not for the Chancellor.
Is it any surprise? NHS staff morale is falling with the value of their pay. Ambulances are taking up to 15 hours to reach critically ill patients, with more than 500 deaths recorded last year when an ambulance did not arrive on time. Some 1.6 million people waited more than 12 hours in A&E, with waiting times linked to 23,000 excess deaths. There is a backlog of over 7 million patients for elective care, and the worst delays on record for cancer patients needing urgent treatment. So many people are struggling to get a GP appointment, and GPs themselves are struggling under pressure. There were 4.6 million—that is 9%—more appointments last December and January than in the same months in the winter before the pandemic, but the number of fully qualified GPs to deal with those appointments dropped by 2,077 since 2015, or 7%.
Then there are the difficulties that many face in getting any NHS dental treatment at all. Across England, 50% of NHS practices have reduced their NHS commitment, and 75% are planning to reduce or further cut their contracts. Patients are facing not simply the frustration of a search for a NHS dentist, but the pain of not finding one, and some are resorting to shocking, desperate DIY measures. Perhaps most shocking of all, children are unable to see a dentist. Three years ago, 58% of children saw an NHS dentist during the year. That was not good enough, but last year the figure fell to 47%. It is no surprise that in 2021 hospitals in England carried out almost 180 operations a day on children to remove rotten teeth. Last July the Government tweaked the dental contract, but according to my local dental committee, without more money we will simply see the slide towards the death of NHS dental provision continue.
Alongside the crisis in the NHS, and fuelling it in part, is the crisis in social care. How we all remember the pledge of the new Prime Minister back in July 2019 on the steps of Downing Street:
“we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve.”
Of course, like so many of his pledges, it was no such thing at all. Although the structure within which people make payments for the care they receive is hugely important, the crisis in social care goes deeper than that: it is about the way in which we provide services. There are so many in the care sector who work so hard, and we saw their extraordinary commitment during the pandemic, but they work with one hand tied behind their back.
There is a massive staff shortage, with 165,000 unfilled posts in adult social care in England last year, up 52% on the previous year. Pay is obviously a key factor, and it is a poor reflection of the way in which this country values those looking after our most vulnerable that care workers are struggling on a minimum wage because of the way in which local authorities have been starved of funds. Domiciliary care workers are restricted to 15-minute visits, reducing the value of that interaction with people desperately in need of care—some of our most vulnerable —to a quick, functional task. We need a fundamental paradigm shift in social care, with care workers paid, trained and supported properly—more like nursing.
The Budget also failed to recognise the support that is needed by the army of 10.6 million unpaid carers who play such a vital role. The right to carer’s leave is an important step, and I welcome the fact that it is being taken by the Government, but for many that leave needs to be paid in order to be meaningful. Carer’s allowances need urgent reform, as one in six carers are facing debt as a result of their role. Opportunities for respite care need improving, and there also needs to be proper support for young carers, some of whom came to Parliament last week and set out their objectives in a letter to the Prime Minister on Young Carers Action Day.
I recognise that addressing all of this comes at a cost, but we need an honest debate about what we need in health and care and how we fund it, stopping some of the political football around it. Rather than some of the attack lines—on one side, the “death tax”; on the other side, the “dementia tax”—we need a real debate about how we fund what the people of this country want in health and social care, and we can fund the services we need. We could start by scrapping the pension tax handout to the richest 1%, which would bring in £1 billion. We could align capital gains tax with the rates applied to income, making the system fairer and raising an extra £16 billion a year. We could scrap the gaps in inheritance tax, which benefit the wealthiest, raising an extra £4 billion a year. A wealth tax of just 1% on individual wealth above £10 million would raise £10 billion from the wealthiest 0.04% of the population. There are ways the Chancellor could have begun to address the challenge, but he did not even recognise the need to. Above everything, this Budget fails on that.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Chancellor’s statement last week, which was the first proper Budget in 17 long and chaotic months, reflected the unacceptable reality of 13 years of Conservative failure, with growth downgraded, wages lower now in real terms than they were in 2010, the highest tax burden on households since the second world war and, over the last two years, the biggest hit to living standards since records began. Constituents reflect this, such as the resident in Newport East who said to me last week:
“Last year for my gas I was topping up £20 a week, now it’s over double that. I’m not sure what I am supposed to do. I cannot afford to live.”
Last week’s Budget said nothing to her, and nothing to all those struggling with the cost of living crisis or the £11,000 hit since 2010 due to stagnant wages, which was so ably outlined earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). There was no redress for my constituent whose plans for retirement this year were ruined by last autumn’s disastrous mini-Budget, which wiped out a substantial amount of her pension. Politics may have moved on, but our constituents are still paying for the economic carnage caused by the Conservative party in that mini-Budget, including homeowners, with average interest rates on outstanding mortgages now twice as high as forecast two years ago.
It is notable that the Chancellor did find time for one permanent tax cut in the Budget—the £1 billion tax reduction for the richest 1% of earners via changes to pension allowances. It is an outrageous tax giveaway for the rich, while millions of older people on modest incomes will find themselves paying more tax because of the six-year freeze on personal allowances. It is a clear reminder that whichever Tory Chancellor sits in No. 11 Downing Street—and we have had a few in recent years—the same skewed sense of priorities remains.
One of the themes of today’s debate is innovation, which is at the core of our steel industry, including at Llanwern steelworks in my constituency of Newport East. That the word “steel” did not feature once in the Chancellor’s statement or the Budget document itself speaks volumes. It proves that, despite the Chancellor fleetingly using the phrase “industrial strategy” last week, this Government do not have one. We have a Business Secretary who, when asked whether Britain should offer steelmaking capacity in the future, carelessly said that “nothing is ever a given”, and we have a Chancellor —well, a succession of Chancellors—unwilling to go as far as European counterparts in supporting our steel sector on the crucial issue of decarbonisation. The German and French Governments have already spent billions of euros and committed even more towards greening their domestic steel sectors, while there have been other ambitious investments in green steel in Canada, Belgium and Sweden. UK Steel highlights that a lack of similar capital funding for decarbonisation in Britain is making our steel industry unattractive for investors. We will await further details from the support pledge for carbon capture, utilisation and storage. There was no information last week on where or when this will be spent, but we clearly need an improvement on the current infrastructure fund.
On industrial energy costs, Make UK has noted that the Budget does little to tackle the real and very immediate threat that manufacturers face with rocketing energy bills far higher than their European competitors. It is no surprise that UK steelmakers will stump up a whopping 63% more than their German counterparts for electricity in 2023. The recent announcements at Liberty Steel show just how serious this issue is.
I mentioned the impact of energy costs on steel businesses, but the same is true in other sectors, including hospitality. At last week’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on hospitality, events and major food and drink businesses in Wales, we heard from hoteliers and publicans how their businesses have been effectively locked into contracts agreed at a time of very high energy costs last year, before the fall in wholesale prices. They want the Government to make it easier for customers to withdraw from expensive energy contracts signed during the chaos of 2022.
Rising energy prices are also having an acute impact on the hospice and home care sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) mentioned. Many hospices are facing up to fivefold increases in their energy costs. For these vital facilities, reducing energy consumption is simply not an option. Hospice UK recently met Ministers to put those points across. It called for increased support beyond the energy bills discount scheme, but that call appears not to have been heard. I ask Ministers to look at that again with the sector.
Finally, the Budget confirmed that the 2023-24 settlement for Wales is £900 million lower in real terms than was projected at the time of the 2021 spending review, with no extra funding made available for health, social services or local government. There is a derisory £1 million extra in capital funding for Wales in 2024-25. The Welsh Government are right to point out that while the UK Tory Government talked up a Budget for growth, in reality they have shown no interest in building a way out of the current financial crisis. We deserve better than a Government that will keep on bumping us along a path of managed decline.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor explained that the economic outlook is not quite as bad as it might have been and heralded that as a cause for celebration. He claimed that his plan is delivering the country from the difficulties we are facing, as if those difficulties were nothing to do with him or the Government of which he is a part. We must be clear: the current situation is dire, and responsibility for it rests squarely with the party that has been in power for the past 13 years.
According to the OECD, we have the weakest economy in the G7; we are the only country that will see negative growth. We are seeing the biggest decline in living standards since records began. The covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have had global impacts, but here in the UK they have exposed the underlying weaknesses in our economy and public services, which are the consequences of more than a decade of government by the Conservative party.
Along the way, this Government have inflicted entirely new damage of their own making. It was Conservative Members who voted for a Prime Minister who was content to send inflation and mortgage bills spiralling and the economy into freefall, completely unnecessarily, in pursuit of her right-wing economic dogma. This Government have neglected public servants, so many of whom have been at the frontline of the covid-19 pandemic—nurses, doctors, railway workers, teachers, paramedics, postal workers—who are now so demoralised, underpaid and burned out that we are seeing the biggest wave of industrial action since the 1980s.
The challenges we face are the result of the Conservatives’ political decisions and priorities. The state of our country is their record—and it is a shameful record of crumbling public services, struggling high streets, falling wages, increasing poverty and deprivation, and declining mental and physical health. This Budget tells us that the Conservatives’ priorities are all wrong and they do not know how to fix what they have broken.
The state of our economy is deeply linked to our response to the climate crisis. Household energy bills have increased because of our dependence on fossil fuels. Yet the Conservatives have wasted a decade failing to invest in onshore wind, crashing the market for domestic solar, and comprehensively failing to deliver a retrofit programme to insulate homes and decarbonise domestic heat.
A fair taxation system is another foundation of a strong economy, yet this Chancellor’s priority, in the context of a biting cost of living crisis, is a £1 billion tax cut for fewer than the richest 1% of earners—not a specific fix to incentivise doctors to remain in work longer, but a tax giveaway in which someone with a pension pot of £2 million will get a tax cut of almost a quarter of a million pounds. The Government have implemented a poorly designed windfall tax that fails to maximise funding to protect households from the energy crisis.
We have the most expensive childcare in Europe, with some families across the country paying far more than their rent or mortgage, and parents, especially women, increasingly deciding that work does not pay. Yet for all the Chancellor’s fanfare about childcare, there is no acceptance by the Government that the current system is broken. Nurseries and childminders are leaving in their droves and staff are leaving. Additional funding is welcome, but without a plan to expand the early years education workforce and reform the complex and confusing hours-based model of funding, it will not make the critical difference that families need.
The Budget ignored completely the biggest issue facing my constituents in Dulwich and West Norwood: the shortage of genuinely affordable social housing. There was not a single commitment to boost the supply of social housing or to improve the quality of existing housing. The rabbit in the Chancellor’s hat could have been the investment to retrofit 19 million homes, or to end non-dom tax status to double the number of training places for doctors and fund free breakfast clubs for every primary school in the country. It could have been a pledge to reform business rates to level the playing field for struggling town centre businesses. It could have been investment in onshore wind and solar. Instead, the Chancellor chose a tax cut for the rich and a packet of sticking plasters for the gaping wounds his party has inflicted on our country.
The Conservatives are out of touch and out of ideas. It is clear from the Budget that it is time for them to make way for a Labour Government who can begin the process of rebuilding our country, investing in green skills for a strong economy, building the childcare system families need, tackling the housing crisis, supporting small businesses and investing in an NHS workforce for the 21st century. The next general election cannot come soon enough.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Just because, unlike the previous Budget, this one has not unravelled in about 20 minutes and led to panic selling in financial markets, the Government should not think that they have vastly redeemed themselves. We now know that the Chancellor’s flagship childcare policies will see nurseries going out of business. The fuel duty levy freeze makes a mockery of any commitment to net zero emissions targets. The removal of the cap on pension pots will affect hardly any consultant doctors at all. Instead, it is a general giveaway to very high earners, and one that protects them from inheritance tax to boot. Most egregiously of all there is a £29 billion handout to businesses, the same businesses that are already swimming in profits because of price gouging and profiteering. We know that this policy will not boost investment, because it has been tried before and failed.
All that has a context. The context is the worst fall in living standards in living memory and a wave of industrial disputes that the Government provoked. The response from Ministers is to claim there is no money left or that paying public sector workers would be inflationary, but it is the price gouging and profiteering by firms that is inflationary. That is not just something you hear me say on a picket line, Mr Deputy Speaker; the Bank for International Settlements research says it, too. This is the central bank for central banks, and no one has ever been stupid enough to claim that it is a left-wing or radical body.
The Chancellor’s policy choice was very simple: to reward those who are responsible for inflation with a multibillion pound handout of taxpayers’ money, and to punish those struggling with that inflation with derisory and insulting pay offers. The Chancellor decided that there was £29 billion left for the profiteers, but, remarkably, that there was no money left for inflation-matching pay rises. The sheroes and heroes of the pandemic are meant to get by on claps. He is a Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor and low-paid, and giving to fat cats, their shareholders and the rich.
This is simply repeating the austerity policy that has hobbled the economy ever since 2010. The Resolution Foundation says that the policy has left British workers £11,000 worse off on average. The Office for Budget Responsibility is very clear about the damage the Budget will do to living standards. It says there will be a record fall in living standards over the two years to the end of March 2024 and that real household disposable income per person is on course to fall by 5.7% over the next two years—the biggest two-year drop since records began in 1956.
There was also nothing in the Budget to address the crisis in public services. In fact, spending on public services as a proportion of GDP is expected to decline in each of the next five years. In a stagnating economy, that means real hardship for millions. There are only even more cuts for local authority services, too.
Government Members may be interested to know that I believe we have seen exponential growth in two areas: privatisation and deregulation. That is warmed-over Thatcherite nonsense. If they believe that Thatcherism worked, they are as deluded as some Members have pointed out today. We are going to see life expectancy falling, poverty growing, child hunger rising and an increase in the number of food banks. This Budget will only ensure that those inequalities continue to grow.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
In his Budget statement, the Chancellor set out his four Es that make up the priorities for economic growth and the direction of the Government: enterprise, education, employment and everywhere—he must have been running out of ideas when he got to that last one. Given that the Tories do not speak for Scotland, but speak at it—they have done since the 1950s—I thought I would set out my own four Es in response to the Chancellor’s statement.
The first E is for Europe. It is crucial that we understand the impact that the lack of European co-operation continues to have on the science and technological sector. Brexit—a word that many now dare not mention on either side of the House—has seen Scottish and UK universities lose almost £1 billion in funding since we left the European Union. That has undoubtedly harmed our research and development potential and strangled the ambition of those looking to make their mark in that sector.
Employment opportunities at world-leading projects such as Horizon Europe have been decimated, with 115 grants having been torpedoed in the past year alone. Nineteen of our top highly skilled researchers say that they would seek a move to the EU in pursuit of funding assurances that are not forthcoming in the United Kingdom. That puts Scotland’s research and development position at a disadvantage, and scientists look towards our friends and neighbours in Europe as the science superpower.
Scotland punches way above its weight in science and research, accounting for 12% of the UK research output. Although the Scottish Government are committed to delivering for science in Scotland, several of the key levers of power remain reserved to this place. Recent UCAS data highlights the devastating impact that Brexit is having on the numbers of new EU students choosing to come to study in Scotland, with a 73% decrease since 2019. There has also been a 64% decrease in the number of EU students securing places across the United Kingdom. That is a consequence of Brexit and we must reckon with the harm that Brexit is continuing to do to our communities in Scotland and the limits on the Scottish Government’s ability to militate against those harms. If we want our science sector to thrive and excel, we cannot rely on this Tory Government’s methodology and direction, which are so deeply rooted in isolation.
Next, we have E for essential. What I have already said alone proves that it is essential for Scotland to retake its place within the European community, but when we examine the most cutting-edge work across the three priority technology areas, we see that the UK represents only around a quarter of the level that would be expected to support the Government’s so-called science superpower narrative. A smattering of tax cuts here and there or lukewarm commitments to funding are simply not enough.
For the UK Government truly to make the UK a science and innovation superpower, it is essential that they rethink their understanding of how science is pushed forward. It is essential that the Tories abandon their isolationist agenda and return the UK to European research networks, which foster scientific development both here at home and further afield. That is essential for many reasons—none more so than the fact that scientific progress is not driven forward by isolation and national competition, but through international co-operation and collaboration. The European Union knows that, and the Tories have repeatedly proven themselves to be ignorant of it.
In the SNP, we have consistently stood behind Scottish science, research and development, and we will continue to do so, but we are held back by the lack of control over areas such as foreign policy and immigration. It is essential that Scotland’s Government have the powers they need at their disposal. That makes independence essential.
Thirdly, E is for energy. The pinnacle of science is understanding and building upon its merits and enhancing the renewable energy sector for future generations. Instead of utilising time, skills, and research into that practice, this Tory Government are set to take the easy route out, reclassifying nuclear power as sustainable. In Scotland, we have no need and no desire for nuclear power. How can we allow such action simply to be forced upon us, when the negative impacts of nuclear power can last not for months but for years upon years? We can solve the energy crisis with the array of energy resources that we already have to offer, and with a proper wealth tax and a proper windfall tax. It really is that simple.
The Chancellor’s fourth and final E was for everywhere. The destruction caused by 13 years of persistent Tory government that Scotland did not vote for is everywhere and it is evident for us all to see. This will continue only if Scotland remains without the powers that our independence will give us.
Since I am coming to the end of my speech, my final E is for ending: ending the stagnation of our science and innovation sectors, allowing Scotland to bring world-renowned excellence to the heart of the science sector; ending the lack of Tory ambition to deal with the climate emergency; ending the dehumanisation of refugees and asylum seekers; and, finally, ending this unequal and involuntary Union.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Today, the Resolution Foundation reported that workers in the UK are £11,000 worse off per year, after 15 years of almost completely unprecedented wage stagnation. It said:
“Nobody who is alive and working in the British economy today has ever seen anything like this… This is definitely not what normal looks like. This is what failure looks like”.
Far from being a global phenomenon, as the Government would have us believe, the UK is lagging behind comparable economies such as Germany. In 2008, the gap was more than £500 a year; now, it is more like £4,000. The UK is the only country in the G7 where pay is lower today than it was in 2008. It is the only economy in the G7 that is smaller now than pre-pandemic, and it has the lowest growth forecast for 2023 of any G7 nation.
Any responsible Government should have done two things at last week’s Budget. First, they should have insulated people from the cost of living crisis and tackled poverty pay in the process. Secondly, they should have invested in a comprehensive industrial strategy to reverse the decline in living standards. Neither happened. On a day when so many of Britain’s key workers were forced to strike over poverty pay, they were offered nothing. Instead of setting out how his Government would tackle widespread in-work poverty, or how the 7.1 million people on NHS waiting lists, many of whom want to go back to work, could receive the treatment that they need to do so, the Chancellor threatened more vigorous benefit sanctions.
The families struggling to afford energy bills were offered crumbs. The Government announced that energy bills would be kept at the same rate for just three months, but that is still a real-terms increase of 19%. There was no mention of making the windfall tax more robust, to provide much needed support, and there was no promise that bills would come down in line with falling wholesale prices. All the while, big oil and gas giants are still raking in billions of pounds in super-profits. The Chancellor ignored collapsing public services, too. Unprotected departments face 10% cuts to real day-to-day spending per capita by 2027-28.
On industrial strategy, to be fair to the Chancellor, he did utter the words “industrial strategy”, but they were a passing reference and that is where it ended. There was no extension of support for energy bills for businesses and no support for manufacturing, which is predicted to contract by 3.3% this year. There was no mention of the urgent support needed by our the steel industry, and nothing for SMEs. We heard about the full expensing scheme for larger businesses, which might have been meaningful if it sat alongside an actual industrial strategy. But in the absence of one, it is just another tax break for large companies.
On the vision for the future, which the Minister gave a nod to earlier, there was certainly a mention of AI, quantum computing and ARIA. All that is good, but the funding does not match the rhetoric. The reality is that, out of the 38 leading OECD nations, we are 27th in terms of our investment in research and development.
This Budget should have been a game changer. It should be have been bold, ambitious and dedicated to improving lives. It should have set out a clear industrial strategy, with an investment plan alongside it. It should have increased the living wage to £15 an hour, and seen a major improvement in benefits for the poorest and a pay deal for all public sector workers. It should have included a genuine tax on oil and gas companies, and the introduction of a wealth tax on the assets and profits of the super-rich, which could have easily funded a massive injection into our public services. Indeed, that is not a radical idea. Patriotic Millionaires and Tax Justice UK provided a wealth tax plan for the Government prior to the Budget, which would have raised over £50 billion a year for our public services.
Instead, we got a Budget that entrenches poverty and restricts our country’s potential. Off the back of the Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility projected that living standards are expected to fall by 6% over the next two fiscal years. That is disgraceful. The only answer is a general election because we do not have a fiscally or socially responsible Government in office.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
As outgoing chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group, I was interested that there was a lot of trumpeting of draught and draught relief in the Budget. Unfortunately for the Scotch whisky industry, the only thing that is blowing in now is a very cold draught as they see the 10.1% increase on duty. That represents another 97p added to the cost of a bottle of whisky.
Some Conservative Members will find that almost something in the abstract, but in a constituency such as mine, where there are roughly 400 direct supply-chain jobs connected to the Scotch whisky industry, that is hugely significant. It ill behoves a Conservative Government who made massive promises to the Scotch whisky industry about the fairness of the taxation system to hand out that 10.1% increase, but at the same time turn around and talk about tax cuts, for example, when it comes to draught beer and some wines. I will leave that for the Government to reflect on, specifically in relation to resolution 36.
Over the course of the Budget debate, there has been a lot of talk about taxation and pensions taxation. As someone who sits on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and takes an interest in these issues, the vast majority of the commentary about that, particularly from the Government Benches, has been completely ill-thought out. It seems to me that many Members of the Government have no ability to tell the difference between the tapered allowance and the lifetime allowance.
The reality is that the Government’s cover story on abolishing the lifetime allowance altogether is that they are trying to tackle some of the shortages of clinicians and doctors in the national health service. In reality, 86%, I think it is, of people who will benefit from the lifetime allowance are not doctors or clinicians in the national health service. It strikes me as being an incredibly expensive policy, something that the OBR’s blue book refers to in its Budget commentary.
On the crisis that we have in terms of the workforce and the general issues that we have around economic inactivity, particularly among 16 to 25-year-olds and the over- 55s, there are some good things that can be done, particularly around childcare. There will be some big supply and demand issues when it comes to childcare, but that is something for the Government to work through. But tinkering with—not even tinkering with, but abolishing—the lifetime allowance and giving that massive giveaway, equating to some £900 million, according to the blue book, is a very expensive policy that will do nothing when it comes to retention of nurses in the NHS or in any of the other sectors that are experiencing workforce shortages.
One reason why the Government are having this big debate about economic inactivity is that the hostile immigration policies they pursue means they are left with a situation where they have lifted up the drawbridge and do not have people coming to these islands. Without inward net migration, we have a falling population, so do not be surprised when we have these situations. But the answer is not a massive giveaway of the kind we can see in Budget resolution 18 on the lifetime allowance.
This all has an impact on my constituents on the streets, whether they are in Easterhouse, Shettleston or Parkhead. The week before the Budget, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and I went to visit Tollcross advice centre. For me, it is all about whether the Budget passes the Bernie test. Bernie is one of the staff at Tollcross advice centre. She told us quite clearly that the biggest issue that people come about is energy bills, yet this Government are scrapping the £400 energy rebate. Bernie and so many other people across my constituency find it utterly unfathomable that they live in a country that is energy-rich, yet they are having these sky-high energy bills. They wonder why. The problem, unfortunately, is that for Bernie and for so many people the Government have the wrong priorities: they are giving away almost £1 billion in tax cuts while many of my constituents have to experience high energy bills.
Finally, I want to say something about economic inactivity. The Government often talk about their plan for jobs, but it seems to me as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee that the Government’s interest is just in putting people into any old job. That is cost-inefficient for a lot of employers, who train up someone who, three or four months later, leaves. The answer is not moving things like the automatic earnings threshold in universal credit. It is not about sanctioning people, which is what this Government seem to be moving far more towards. The Government have said that this Budget is about being a science superpower, but the Red Book put in front of us last week shows the reality: we are moving closer to being a sanctions superpower. That is not something that my constituents in Glasgow East will tolerate—and the best way they can get rid of it is with independence.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
When we are the only economy in the G7 that is still smaller than it was pre-pandemic, it is not unreasonable to expect greater urgency from the Government when dealing with turning that around, but I came away from last week’s Budget thinking, “Is that it?”
The Opposition recognise that this is not a moment for tweaking the current, failed approach to the economy. When the major tax change announced is a tax cut for the richest 1% that is badged as a plan to help the NHS, we have embarrassing levels of spin that would make even the hardiest spin doctor blush, as well as making real doctors cringe at the thought of being used as a cover for a tax giveaway for the richest. It is a telling sign of how low expectations have got that last week we had the absurd spectacle of the Chancellor standing up at the start of his speech and telling us we would not be going into a recession this year, as if that were some kind of triumph. It does not get much better beyond this year, either: over the entire Parliament, growth is forecast to be just 0.5% a year on average, which is way below historical standards.
What makes all this worse is that we have sky-high inflation right now. As we have heard, real wage growth has been non-existent since 2010, and real wages are projected to be 5% less at the beginning of 2025 than at the start of 2019. Before Conservative Members use the pandemic as an excuse, we must not forget that that is part of an 18-year pay squeeze. The OBR has forecast that real wages will not return to their 2008 level until 2026. That really is a dramatic statistic that shows how badly we have all done under this Government.
If wages had continued to increase at their pre-2008 rate, every single one of us would have been £233 a week better off today, and that gap would grow to £304 a week by 2027. As we have heard, the Resolution Foundation has put a figure of £11,000 a year on what 15 years of wage stagnation has cost every family in this country. That should really give us a warning about the direction we are travelling in. By the end of this decade, average incomes will lag behind those in Poland if we carry on as we are.
We are paying more for worsening public services and earning less in the process. This is hitting the majority of people really hard. There should be an OBR forecast of how many more people are expected to use food banks, but in its absence I will quote our local citizens advice bureau:
“The scale and size of the crisis is unlike anything we’ve seen and it’s affecting people we haven’t helped with crisis support before with this being nearly 50% higher than 2021 and more than double the numbers we helped in 2020.”
The number of people it has helped who are in employment has also doubled since 2020, which tells us everything we need to know about how wages have not kept up with costs and how our economy is stagnating.
Last year, we in Cheshire did think briefly that it would be recognised that areas outside the city regions might need some special attention when it was announced during the September “fiscal event” that Ellesmere Port’s industrial area would be one of 40 investment zones, but last week we mysteriously disappeared from the list of investment zones, with no explanation, no apology, and no refund for the time and money that had been wasted in preparation for something that will not now happen. For us, as for so many areas, last week’s announcement came as a crushing blow. In fact, it has been estimated that local authorities spent some £12.5 million on preparing bids that are now completely redundant. What a waste of resources, when local authorities are already stretched. So far, no official rationale has been offered for the removal of support from us, and there has certainly been no offer of an alternative scheme or support. We are being treated with contempt. It is particularly galling that, when we look at the areas that have been chosen, it looks as if we are being punished because we do not have and do not want an elected Mayor.
Only two weeks ago, during a Westminster Hall debate, three Cheshire Members asked for a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), so that we could try to make progress with our devolution plans. Needless to say, we have not received a response, and now we learn that we are to be consigned to the devolution dustbin because we will not dance to the Government’s tune and give them an elected Mayor. That is not what devolution is about. It is a diktat from the top, and the Government ought to be ashamed of themselves for attempting to bully areas into accepting a Mayor when there is no public appetite for one.
I want to say a few words about access to cash, as I was unable to attend a Westminster Hall debate on the subject earlier today because I was in the Chamber. As we know, millions of adults rely on cash to a great extent in their daily lives, and many of them are vulnerable or disabled. I know from talking to constituents that it is getting harder and harder to put cash into bank accounts. That means that lots of businesses cannot accept cash because the branches in which they used to put the cash have gone. We need to get the banking hubs up and running in every town and city in the country, and to ensure that businesses are required to accept cash.
Let me end by quoting the words of a disabled constituent who, because she is on legacy benefits, has missed out on thousands of pounds of extra help already, but whose situation is becoming steadily worse. She told me:
“I am out of pocket now by well over £400 a month—due to mortgage payments, energy costs, food costs and petrol. I’ve had to sell furniture to cover this cost! Does this government think this is acceptable?... And what happens next month?...How am I supposed to live?”
I do not know what will happen to my constituent next month, or the month after that, or what will happen to the many other constituents in the same position. That uncertainty and anxiety should weigh very heavily on the shoulders of Conservative Members.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a terrible Budget from a busted-flush Government. We have heard from the other side, “Give them another chance—the new Tory dynamic duo of Rishi and Jezza.” They certainly talk the talk on growth, debt, inflation and the NHS, but do they walk the walk? The answer is no.
We have seen stagnant growth for 13 years, with no real prospect of it being any better than the worst in the G7 in the year to come. Let us compare that with what happened under a Labour Government. In 10 years we saw the economy grow by 40%, and we used the money to double investment in health and education and lift a million children and a million pensioners out of poverty. With that level of growth—that trend growth—we would have been £11,000 better off in terms of average wages. The Prime Minister says “That’s not my fault”, but during much of the time during which we have seen this decay and mismanagement, he was the Chancellor.
What about debt? Since the last Labour Government, debt as a share of the economy has doubled from 45% of the economy to 90%. That is an appalling record, and an indictment of this Government’s failed austerity platform. As for inflation, the Government’s ambition is to halve it from 10% to 5%. According to the forecasts it will be 3%, so it should not be that difficult. People seem to think this will reduce prices. Obviously, if inflation is 10% and then becomes 5%, prices will have gone up by 15%; and if the Government are offering workers at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea 2%—in fact, a 13% pay cut—it is no wonder that they are on strike. This Government are busy causing strikes left, right and centre. If the RMT’s original bid of 7%, from before it went on strike, had been accepted, we would not be in the position where now the workers are—deservedly, in fact—getting 14%. We have had this disruption and chaos because of Tory mismanagement, because the Government will not negotiate. They just create strikes.
We are told that we have to live within our means. That is all very well for the Chancellor, who is a millionaire, or indeed for the Prime Minister, who is a billionaire. He has his hedge fund Theleme, which appreciated from £7 billion to £39 billion after the Government decided to buy the Moderna vaccine as recommended by the then Health Secretary, who has since made his money in the jungle.
What about waiting lists? We have waiting lists of 7 million people—are we going to get those down under this Government? We know that the cost of treating someone with low nourishment is something like £7,000 compared with £2,000 for someone who is properly fed, yet in Britain today one in four people are in food poverty. The inequality created by this Government is making the health service worse, not better, and the billion pound that they have put into pension fund tax relief will not make it better. The workers are being blamed, of course, for inciting pay demands, but wage growth is in fact down now, year on year, from 6% to 5.7%, at a time when inflation is well over that.
Who else is going to pay? Of course, homeowners have to pay. They have to help bring down inflation. How? By bringing down the price of houses by 8%. So new homeowners will see mortgage rates double or triple from 2% to 6% at a time when the value of their houses is going down—and they are supposed to be the growth creators of the future. The Bank of England’s base rate has gone from 0.1% in November 2021 to 4% now. The economy has gone out of control under Tory mismanagement.
And what about businesses? The Government talk about businesses, but we now have record insolvencies. They are up 30% since 2020. Material prices and energy prices are going up, borrowing costs are going up and demand is weak, so businesses are struggling.
We have heard about R&D in this debate, and as I have mentioned, in Wales 1,000 university staff at the cutting edge of developing green growth initiatives are being sacked because the promise of us getting “not a penny less” after the withdrawal of the EU structural funding has been broken by this Government. We are talking about losing innovative projects to turn waste plastic into nanocarbon tubes for electric vehicles. We are talking about converting steel slag heaps back into raw materials such as iron ore. We are talking about work with Tata Steel on cladding for homes that stores solar energy as well as absorbing it. On infrastructure, Wales has had just a 1.5% share of rail enhancement for decades for 5% of the population—we are not even getting our 5% for HS2.
There has been profiteering—we have seen the oil companies and the retail companies making profits out of the Ukraine war and the pandemic respectively, and we have seen natural monopolies such as the water companies profiteering. It is not good enough. The Tories are saying, “Trust us again”, even after the inflation, after the debt, after the lack of growth, after one in four have been living in poverty and after a 15% cut in trade. No, no, no! We want a stronger, fairer, greener future, and that will only come with a Labour Government. Let us have an election, put the country out of its misery and build a better future with the Labour party.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Could Members who have taken part in today’s debate please make their way to the Chamber, as this will be the 43rd and final contribution from the Back Benches?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think I am the Duracell bunny; I seem to go on longer than anybody else. I have been here since 25 past 2, so that gives you an idea of how long we have been here, and I will be here for the Adjournment debate as well.
May I begin by thanking the Chancellor for his and his team’s hard work? I do not underestimate the blood and sweat that goes into the decision-making process. Before I highlight the issues on which I would like clarity and further consideration, I want to make it clear that I know there is not a money tree—at least, I am not aware of one—that we can shake to satisfy us all. However, there are needs, and needs must be met.
I am thankful that fuel duty has been frozen. However, it should be remembered that things are still difficult for public transport providers. They are putting prices up, and commuters are feeling the difference. The Chancellor has rightly focused on getting people into work, but we need to make sure work is worth their while.
It is always good to give examples, and a mother came to see me last week to get her driving licence signed. She works two jobs, and she spoke about the expense of all the extras at school. Swimming and trips add up, so she took a second job delivering Chinese meals in the evenings. She relies on her tips to pay for those extras. Women in the UK should not have to work all day and into the evening to provide a basic standard of living. I asked her to look into universal credit as a top-up—we advise people on the benefits to which they are entitled—and she said, “Jim, it’s just too much hassle. I prefer to work and know that what I have is mine, rather than worrying that I will get a bill because I have done something wrong.” It seems wrong to me that those who work the hardest receive no help and are living hand to mouth, afraid to ask for help.
I welcome some of the good things the Government have done, such as the pothole plan, from which the Barnett consequential will help us in Northern Ireland. I also welcome the help for SMEs, which have ingenuity, positivity and ability. SMEs are so important to my constituency.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is in her place, and she knows I am like a dog with a bone on child benefit, but it is important to keep at it. The responses I have received during debates on the child benefit threshold do not satisfy me, and they certainly do not satisfy my struggling constituents. People who work hard for a living, earning not a penny of benefits other than their child benefit payment, do not understand why the threshold has been frozen for 10 years, why it does not include the family income rather than a single income, and why it does not matter whether a family has one child or 10, as others have mentioned. It is not right and cannot be right that the threshold is the same, and with respect, it must be made right.
People who were once comfortable on their wage are now struggling to meet the rising costs of their mortgage, their car payments, their student loan repayments and everything else, but they are afraid to accept a modest pay rise because they are frightened of losing child benefit or having to pay a large tax bill. I know that was never the Government’s intention, and I urge the Minister, for the sake of the squeezed middle class, to allow my constituents to see the benefit of their education and hard work, rather than wondering what the point is of working for all those years only to find themselves struggling. This needs to be changed, and it needs to be changed now.
The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) spoke about health issues, and the British Heart Foundation has contacted me to say that, despite the unwavering efforts of NHS staff, the pandemic has caused huge disruption to every aspect of cardiovascular care. That care is time critical, as delays to vital tests, procedures and operations can lead to preventable heart attacks, avoidable hospital admissions, disability from heart failure or even premature death. At the end of January, 370,000 heart patients were waiting for elective care. My goodness, what a massive number of people—we need to address that. That includes people waiting for echocardiograms, initial appointments with specialists and surgery. The British Heart Foundation has said it is disappointing not to see anything further announced in the Budget to address the urgent NHS backlog challenges. I ask the Minister and the Chancellor to take that on board.
Official NHS England statistics do not go far enough in providing information about sub-specialisms and demographic workforce information, including retirement rates. Planning intelligently for the future is impossible if we do not know where we are today, so I ask the Government to develop a robust, integrated process for collecting, compiling and sharing workforce data at specialty level. Alongside that, the integrated care system planners must be resourced with the appropriate training and support to understand and utilise that information.
I support the BHF in its calls for this funding. I know everyone has a wish list, but my wish is a simple one. It is a cry for investment in the things we need to help the people who slog away, morning, noon and night, for the quality of life that they were able to provide for their children five years ago, whether it is piano lessons or dance lessons. They are stressed and worried, and ultimately they have less money to put into the local economy. The squeezed middle class spends locally, helping the wee shops, dance studios and restaurants nearby. This needs to be addressed, and the Chancellor and the Minister can make the calls that make a difference. Let us make a difference in this Budget for all our people.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the chance to close today’s Budget debate on behalf of the Opposition. We have heard powerful speeches from many of my hon. Friends about the Government’s Budget and economic record. The impact on our constituents of the Tories’ failure on the economy and public services was laid bare by many Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), for Caerphilly (Wayne David), for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), for Newport West (Ruth Jones), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).
Critical questions were raised about the delivery of the Government’s announcement on childcare, including by my hon. Friends the Members for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). The total lack of an effective and ambitious plan for growth from the Government was underlined by many Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders).
All my hon. Friends have been clear that last week our country needed a Budget with a plan to end 13 years of economic failure. Families, businesses and our public services needed a plan to grow the economy, but instead what is the reality we face? Ours is the only G7 economy forecast to shrink this year; our long-term growth forecasts have been downgraded; and we are suffering the worst falls in household incomes in a century. The shocking impact of the Conservatives’ economic failure is laid bare by the fact that wages are not expected to return to their 2008 level in real terms until 2026. Across the UK, people and businesses rightly want better. They want to get on with making our country better off, but they are being held back by a Government who are out of energy and out of ideas.
The only good ideas in the Budget were the ones that Labour has been calling for for months. We were glad that in the Budget the Chancellor followed our lead by committing to extending the energy price cap, ending the unfair premium for people on prepayment meters, cancelling the planned fuel duty increase, helping the over-50s back into work and improving childcare for working people. All those announcements are ideas that Labour has been calling for and the Conservatives have finally caught up with. The Tories did not adopt all our ideas, though. The Prime Minister and Chancellor are still stubbornly refusing to close loopholes in the windfall tax to pay for the extension of the energy price cap. Billions of pounds of oil and gas giants’ windfall profits are being left on the table, as working people are once again made to foot the bill.
Again, we have another fiscal event where the Prime Minister and Chancellor decide to turn a blind eye to the non-dom tax status, which lives to see another day. We know that some residents of Downing Street are very familiar with non-dom status and may be keen to see it continue, but Labour believes that those who make Britain their home should pay their taxes here. The non-dom rules are costing us more than £3 billion every year, and it is wrong to let an outdated, unfair loophole continue when ending it could fund the biggest expansion of the NHS workforce in a generation.
I have so far spoken about Labour ideas, some of which the Government copied and others of which they chose not to. To be fair, the Budget did include at least one idea that was not ours and that, to be honest, surprised us all. That idea was the Budget’s one permanent tax cut: a £1 billion bung to the richest 1% and their pension pots. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, and just weeks before stealth tax rises hit working people across the country, it is astonishing that the Conservatives could possibly see this as the right way to spend public money. This handout, given through changes to tax-free pension allowances, is the wrong priority, at the wrong time, for the wrong people. What we needed was a fair fix for doctors’ pensions, to get them back in work. What we got was a tax giveaway for tens of thousands of the very top earners. Why on earth did the Government not design a targeted scheme to encourage doctors to work overtime and not to retire early? That could be done at a fraction of the cost, as the British Medical Association has made clear.
Furthermore, we know that reforming NHS doctors’ pensions is not a new idea. It was identified in a report by the Health and Social Care Committee in July last year, which said:
“The Government must act swiftly to reform the NHS pension scheme to prevent senior staff from reducing their hours and retiring early from the NHS.”
I would not assume that every member of the Government had read the Committee’s report, but I would assume that the Chair of the Committee certainly did, and he is of course now the Chancellor. In his Budget, the Chancellor is happy to take good ideas from Labour—it is just a shame he did not take a good idea on doctors’ pensions from himself.
A sure indication of a policy’s weak foundations is when Ministers are not even able to get the facts straight. We saw that yesterday in reported comments by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who claimed that
“it tends to be a lot of public sector workers who are hit by this cap”.
However, the reality seems rather different. The post-Budget report published by the Resolution Foundation made it clear that
“more than half of those with the largest pension pots”
are
“actually in the private sector.”
Pensions expert John Ralfe went further, saying that
“this is not about supporting a hard-pressed NHS, it is really a tax giveaway for tens of thousands of the very highest earners”.
Ahead of the vote that we will be pushing on this measure tomorrow, I therefore urge the Minister to come clean over its impact on the NHS. How many NHS doctors will benefit from this policy, and what proportion of its total beneficiaries do they comprise? How many NHS doctors are expected to return to work as a result of this policy? If the Minister and her colleagues are asking fellow Conservatives to follow them down the path the Government have chosen, they should at the very least not let them do so in the dark.
Today we have debated many of the individual measures in last week’s Budget, but when we take a step back from individual measures, it is clear that perhaps the most serious failure of this Budget is to leave us on the Conservatives’ path of managed decline. As the Resolution Foundation pithily summed it up in its report the day after the Budget,
“the UK’s underlying challenges remain largely unaddressed. We are investing too little and growing too slowly; our citizens’ living standards are stagnant; and we are asking them to pay higher taxes while cutting public services.”
The only way to get us out of this Conservative doom loop is to support businesses and get the economy growing, and that is what Labour’s green prosperity plan is all about. It is a plan that sees the challenge of climate change as an opportunity to grow our economy. It is a plan to make sure that British businesses and workers benefit from the jobs and industries of the future.
The world economy is changing, and we need to make sure Britain is ahead of the game in terms of not just our transition to zero-carbon energy and the green industries of the future but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) set out earlier, the global race on technology. As the shadow Secretary of State said, the Conservatives are divorced from the reality of what it will take to win that global race, and they are leaving us lagging behind in the race for the industries of the future. Ministers are letting businesses down by missing the chance to make the UK a leader in regulations for new technologies, and they are letting people down by failing to put in place the training that will allow everyone to benefit from the opportunities of the future.
When I meet businesses across the country, they are clear that they need a Government who will support them through the headwinds we face and who will work with them to succeed in the economy of the future. They want stability and certainty above all else, but instead we have seen corporation tax change almost every year since 2010, and this Budget delivers the fifth major change in capital expensing in just two years. As Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said in response to the latest temporary tweak to the tax regime for businesses:
“There’s no stability, no certainty, and no sense of a wider plan.”
The truth is that the Conservatives cannot provide stability or certainty. They have grown so riven by division, so used to looking inward and so ready to put party before country that they are incapable of providing the stability and certainty that people and businesses across the UK need. The Conservatives may know that we need to grow the economy—even the last Prime Minister seemed to realise that—but they are incapable of coming up with or delivering the plan we need to make it happen.
We need to grow the economy, yet ours is the only one in the G7 forecast to shrink this year. We need strong growth in the future, yet the UK’s forecasts have been downgraded. We need fairer taxes for working people, yet stealth tax rises are going ahead next month. We need investment in the NHS, yet the Government are protecting non-doms instead. And we need support for British businesses to grow, yet all we see is the US and Europe pulling ahead. The Conservatives have had 13 years and they have failed. Now they need to stop failing the British people. It is time for a general election and time for a new Government to put our country back on the right track.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
I thank colleagues across the House for a spirited debate, in which we discussed some profoundly serious issues facing our constituents and our country. Although there may be very different ideas across this Chamber on how to deal with those issues, I am sure that Opposition Members will accede, in an air of understanding how important this is to our democracy, that while we may have different ideas, we all fundamentally want the same thing: to look after our constituents and this great country.
I particularly want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have revealed to us their expertise in science. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) on his frankly ingenious use of the phrases “levelling up” and “productivity increase” when it comes to the number of swimming pool lanes in the Marple leisure hub. I also suspect he is the first colleague to get “inflatable flamingo” into Hansard.
The Government have a bold and ambitious plan to grow our economy, which will be driven in part by our taking a seat at the table of science and innovation superpowers. It is a plan for the future, not just in the realm of science and technology, but of our economy altogether. Just as we can improve people’s lives through science, innovation and technology, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined at the start of the debate, we can also create highly paid and rewarding jobs across the UK, and we plan to do exactly that through our levelling-up work and our investment zones.
Of course, the way taxes are levied will be an important part of our success. As the Minister responsible for the tax system, I have asked my officials to keep three objectives in mind: making tax fairer, making tax simpler and making tax supportive of growth. By creating the right incentives through tax, we will harness British ingenuity to make us a science superpower.
We have heard a lot of statistics in this debate. In an effort to share the goodwill and cheer everybody up a bit, I thought I would give some more statistics, to put just a little colour and context on some of the stats we have heard. Since 2010 we have grown more than major economies such as France, Italy and Japan, and about the same as Europe’s largest economy, Germany. On growth, last year we had the highest growth of any G7 economy.
While Opposition Members understandably like to focus on the bad news that this year we are not meeting the hopes we all have in respect of growth, it is important to draw out the OECD’s fuller forecast, which is that cumulative growth between 2022 and 2024 inclusive for the United Kingdom is predicted to be higher than for Germany, Japan or the United States. The World Bank says that, out of all of the big European countries, we are the best place to do business. Surely the Labour party does not disagree with that. Global CEOs say that, apart from America and China, we are the best country in which to invest.
That is precisely why we have announced the full expensing policy, which will support the corporation tax policy and the annual investment allowance for smaller businesses. We have the world’s third trillion-dollar technology economy, after the United States and China. We have built the largest film and TV industry in Europe—again, we had some good news for that industry last week with the tax reliefs that the Chancellor announced. In terms of the personal, a disadvantaged pupil is 85% more likely to go to university now than they were a decade ago.
We have also built the largest life sciences sector in Europe, something my right hon. and hon. Friends representing Cambridgeshire are particularly keen to emphasise every time we meet. The Government recognise the value of small and medium-sized enterprises to the wider R&D ecosystem of the UK and the hugely important role that research and development and innovation plays for the economy and for society.
Even in extremely challenging fiscal circumstances, we must prioritise R&D, and indeed we are prioritising it. That is why we are introducing an enhanced credit whereby, if a 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 spent, something welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).
Emma Hardy
Does the Minister share the concerns that I set out earlier about the fraud involved in the R&D tax relief, which equates to more than £1 billion being lost in fraudulent investments that HMRC is yet to be able to fully claw back for the taxpayer?
Victoria Atkins
Not only do I agree with the hon. Lady, but I am going even further than the changes that we have made to the R&D scheme. She will see in the Finance Bill some practical measures to help small businesses ensure that they are not inadvertently—or indeed, sometimes fraudulently—dragged into that scheme. I do not want a pub restaurant claiming that discovering avocado is a research and development issue, so we are absolutely clamping down on that. I know that other hon. Members around the House raised that as well.
To put a little context on the R&D changes, they mean that an eligible cancer drug company spending £2 million on research and development will receive more than half a million back to help it to deliver breakthrough treatments. Of course, R&D is not confined just to life sciences and the tech sector; it is also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) righty set out, even present in the ceramics industry. I very much look forward to the things he mentioned coming into fruition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith)—I apologise for my pronunciation of her constituency—and others mentioned Horizon. The latest update that I can give the House is that, of course, we have expanded the Horizon guarantee until the end of June this year. I am delighted to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Science Minister met the EU ambassador only last week to continue our discussions about that scheme.
In relation to corporation tax, of course, we have one of the most supportive business tax regimes in the world. We have the lowest corporation tax in the G7. The UK’s research and development expenditure credit offers the joint highest uncapped headline rate of R&D tax relief support in the G7 for large companies, and the Government’s announcement of full expensing for businesses from 1 April this year will make a huge difference to businesses.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) noted, that tax cut, which is worth an average of £9 billion a year for every year that it is in place, is focused only on those businesses that invest. That is targeted help for the businesses that will invest in our country—I hope, having noted his comments about the super-deduction, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) will welcome that.
I genuinely think that the confirmation of the 12 investment zones is one of the most exciting parts of the Budget. Each investment zone will drive innovation and growth in one of our key future sectors—including life sciences, advanced manufacturing, green industries, digital and technology, and creative industries—and, importantly, will be aligned to local economic strengths, with a total investment of £80 million over five years.
My hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland) both put up strong, heartfelt arguments in favour of their areas. I am afraid that I cannot make decisions at the Dispatch Box, but I wish them well in that.
Another exciting development is for my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), who is developing a real reputation for representing her constituency and the need for nuclear. We are delighted that Great British Nuclear will launch the first stage competition for small modular reactors, which is expected to attract the best designs from domestic and international vendors. I know that she will watch that carefully
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who brings to the Chamber her expertise not just as a former science graduate but, importantly, as a former Health Minister, welcomed the announcements made last week on medicines and medical technology regulation. The MHRA has some exciting developments coming down the road, including being able to set up new approval processes for the most cutting-edge medicines and devices to ensure that we continue to be a global centre for their development, and a new system that will allow rapid, often near-automatic sign-off for medicines and technologies approved by other highly respected and trusted medicine regulatory bodies around the world.
On pensions, Opposition Members have appeared not to support the Government’s efforts to get more doctors back into the NHS. A fact: the Royal College of Surgeons of England has reported that 69% of respondents to its survey said that they were cutting their hours because of pensions rules. Another fact: the chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners says that this is a “game changer” for keeping police chiefs fighting crime. Another fact: the Association of School and College Leaders said:
“It is in the national interest”.
I take some guidance from the shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who said that it will “inevitably save lives” to make these changes. That is why we are doing it. We can introduce it in two weeks’ time, and I very much hope that Opposition Members will support it.
Childcare is another massive policy, but I am very pleased—
Operation Telic
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me an Adjournment debate this evening, as we mark 20 years since British armed forces crossed from Kuwait into Iraq. Operation Telic—the Iraq war—had begun, and many lives would change forever. By its end in 2011, 179 members of our armed forces had made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, and it is a solemn privilege to pay tribute to them tonight, and to all who served on Telic.
As a veteran of the campaign, I had the privilege of knowing some of the 179. I served two tours, from February 2003 as the adjutant of 3 Para, and then again in 2004 as a deployed staff officer from the Permanent Joint Headquarters. Twenty years on, it is understandable that differing views are still held on the decision to deploy military force in Iraq, and the role that the UK played, but I focus my remarks tonight on commemorating those who stepped forward to serve and on those who did not come home.
All conflicts have their own unique characteristics, and Telic posed a particular set of threats, not least the heat and the sand, which got everywhere, but also the terrifying prospect of chemical warfare. Thousands of veterans will remember what it was like deployed in the desert, as do I. Chemical warfare drills were practised as soon as members of our armed forces deployed to Kuwait at the start of 2003. We will all remember one simple, but deadly word, shouted three times: “Gas. Gas. Gas.” That was the signal to put on our respirators. In the intense heat on the hot sand, and often in pitch black, we kept them on for long periods while wearing thick protective suits. There were no complaints, because we knew that the threat was real, and we practised the drills again and again.
Outside of military and fitness training, church services were held and attended by believers and non-believers alike. Padres provided private counsel to those who sought it on what the burning cauldron of conflict might bring. Most of us kept our thoughts to ourselves, and cracked on as best we could. The camaraderie was comforting to us all, and we took pride in serving our regiments and our country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. and gallant Member for bringing this debate forward. Does he agree that the 20th anniversary of Operation Telic is an opportunity to look at how we are treating veterans 20 years on? I think he is coming to this point, but the support can be lacking. Will he join me in thanking charities—I have many charities in my constituency—such as Beyond the Battlefield in Portavogie in my constituency? It has opened a café at its veterans centre to fund projects and support for veterans throughout Northern Ireland. It does an excellent job and reaches people who the other charities miss.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has long been a doughty champion for those who serve. I completely agree with the point he made about supporting the armed forces charities, which do extraordinary work supporting those who serve. I also completely agree with the point he made about veterans, and I will come to that point in just a moment in my speech.
I was reflecting on what life was like in the desert, and was about to make the point that contact with home was very limited, through the odd precious phone call and “blueys”—airmail letters. However, there was always the radio, and to this day, the theme played on the BBC World Service, “Lillibullero”, instantly takes me back to that time in the desert 20 years ago. Looking back, I remember the quiet fear about what was coming, but I also remember the resolute determination to do our jobs and to look out for our soldiers.
When British forces did finally cross the line of departure into Iraq, they would conduct themselves with extraordinary bravery and professionalism. There is not time tonight to do justice to all those courageous acts during Telic. Instead, I will list the awards for gallantry received between 2003 and 2011: 23 Queen’s Gallantry Medals, five George Medals, two Air Force Crosses, 18 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 85 Military Crosses, one Distinguished Service Cross, nine Royal Red Crosses, 15 Conspicuous Gallantry Crosses, 18 Distinguished Service Orders, three Orders of the Bath, two George Crosses and one Victoria Cross, awarded to Private Johnson Beharry of the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment. Through those awards, all three branches of our armed forces were rightly recognised for their outstanding contributions.
Out of those decorated for acts of gallantry, some did not live to receive their awards—making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, thousands of miles away from home in Iraq. In total, 179 lives were lost, with families and loved ones left to grieve and to carry the pain of loss for the rest of their lives.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I sincerely thank the hon. Member for giving way, but moreover for bringing this debate about in the first place. On those 179, I wanted to pay tribute to one constituent: Daniel Coffey, a rifleman who, not content to serve on Op Telic 7, went back subsequently on Op Telic 8, where he was sadly killed while providing top cover. He died protecting his mates in the way that he saw fit.
Dan Jarvis
He did indeed, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for making reference to that. He does so at a most opportune moment, because I was literally about to refer to two men who I will be thinking about tonight, who also made the ultimate sacrifice and did not come home: Private Kelly, of A company, 3 Para—Andy was 18 years old—and Major Bacon. Matt was an outstanding officer in the Intelligence Corps and a friend from Sandhurst. I will never forget them, nor all of those who fell.
I recently visited the National Memorial Arboretum, where I stood in contemplative silence, reading the names on the memorial wall. I also looked at the willow trees grown in memory of those who fell in Iraq, each dedicated to a life cut short. It was a poignant but calming reminder of the price paid and the enduring loss.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I had the privilege of commanding two sub-units out in Iraq on Operation Telic 4, and a few years later on Operation Telic 13. I can recall vividly in Basra, on Telic 4, deploying into a relatively benign environment—floppy hats and shorts, open-top Land Rovers at Basra International airport—but my word, at the end of that tour, we were deployed with body armour, helmets, electronic counter-measures and the full suite of protection. How far we came in that particular tour. I can vividly recall journeys from Basra up to Al-Amarah and other locations. I think Operation Telic was the most kinetic tour for many years.
I want to raise two points. First, will my hon. Friend join me in commending and thanking all those brilliant soldiers who served alongside us in our tours there? Those people made those tours, and thank God, I brought them home. Secondly and more importantly, many were not quite so fortunate, and I commend all of those who were engaged in the most hostile circumstances, the most hostile encounters, in really hostile conditions. I hope my hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to all those who did not come back, and to all those who sacrificed so much.
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I completely agree with his analysis. It is absolutely right that we take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who served, and of course in particular to those who sacrificed.
While, of course, we will never forget those who fell in the service of our country, we should also tonight remember the 5,791 members of our armed forces who were injured in the course of their service on Telic. Some recovered quickly and fully, returning to service. Others, however, still live with their injuries. Some are physical and visible, but others sustained mental injuries that are less visible, but no less severe. We must support them all, because we owe them a debt of gratitude—a debt of gratitude that must be paid in full. So it is vital that, in this place, we work together for injured veterans of Telic, and of all conflicts, to ensure that we do right by them.
It is absolutely right that we reflect tonight, 20 years on, on the courage, hardship and loss of those who served, and in particular the families that lost loved ones who did not come home. The Iraq war still casts a long shadow over so many lives, and on decisions being made today. History will continue to review why it happened, but the truth of what happened—the experiences of those who stepped forward—will always endure. The legacy of Iraq should not lock us into inaction; it must spur us to look our recent past in the eye, learn from it and be better. It is our sombre duty never to forget and to commemorate milestones such as this, as, after every conflict, time can be the greatest unraveller of our collective memory. Time is also a privilege of the living, and out of reach for the 179 who fell in Iraq. They have taken their place in a long line of others who came before and follow after them—the fallen. While we grow old, they cannot, and while we remember, they cannot, so we will remember them today, 20 years on, and forever more. Thank you for your service.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Adam Holloway has the permission of the Member who has secured this debate and of the Minister responding to make a short contribution, and I have been informed.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to do so. It is a great pleasure to follow my thoughtful and distinguished friend’s speech—the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) is a proper professional soldier, who does not feel the need to gob-off about his military service in this place. I also thank the Minister, who currently serves as a royal naval reservist on the active list.
I was in Iraq for both Gulf wars—in 1991 as a soldier, and 20 years ago as a correspondent. As my distinguished friend says, today we remember the 179 servicemen and women who died in Iraq, and we pay tribute to their bravery and professionalism. They have always given such service, seeking to protect our constituents, but they were committed to it and the subsequent almost two decades of war by people here and in Ministries immediately around us. I regret that, over these years, our forces have too often been let down by the decisions of those near here and in this place.
At Sandhurst, as my friends here will recall, virtually the first point we were told was that we use violence—extreme violence—only in support of a clear set of political objectives. In Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11, those political objectives were never clear, and through our negligence and indeed ignorance we have often cast many millions of people in these places into frankly unimaginable insecurity, because we would rip down structures that pre-existed and that held these places together.
I remember very well the early morning that Mosul fell. American jets were coming down low and there were bodies in the streets—retribution was taking place. I remember a mob wheeling incubators out of the hospital, looting—just looting everywhere. It was the only place as a correspondent that I ever armed my team. It was that dangerous.
I went to the police headquarters and there were all these Saddam Hussein lookalikes. I was staggered when the Mosul police chief said to me, because he knew I was going to see the small American contingent at an airfield, “Will you please get them to come up and see me, because I want my instructions about what they want us to do?” That was astonishing, frankly. Mosul had just fallen and he was prepared to co-operate with the Americans to do the right thing.
I went to the airfield and I did my business with this American colonel. I said, “Look, the Iraqi general is very keen that you go up and see him and tell him what you want.” He said, “You can go right up there yourself and you can tell him to eff himself.” At that point I thought, “Yeah, you know, we haven’t really thought this through. Where are we going with this?”
Anyway, the rest is history in Iraq, and to a degree that tragedy plays on today. I do not have time to go through the disaster that followed in Afghanistan, where, again, our troops did magnificently but, through poor planning by us, basically, we again tore down existing structures thinking that somehow we knew better. Well, we have been here before. Back in 1851, John Kaye said of an earlier war in Afghanistan:
“A strange moral blindness clouded the vision of our statesmen: they saw only the natural, the inevitable results of their own measures, and forgot that those measures were the dragon’s teeth from which sprang up armed men.”
We pay tribute tonight to the veterans, and we remember all those who died in these wars, especially those from our own armed forces. But we should also hope that in the future people in this House and surrounding Ministries honour the risks that they take by having a proper plan for what comes next. That is the least we can promise our troops.
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I very much welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) has provided to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the start of Operation Telic. I want to begin by paying tribute to him, both for his own outstanding service and for his deeply moving tribute to those with whom he served and the veterans he champions.
For me, too, Iraq is personal. Somewhat ironically, having opposed the war here, I was recalled to serve as a battle group medical officer during Telic 2. I have expressed my feelings about the Iraq war on a number of occasions and I will not rehearse them again today. Suffice it to say that lessons learned were dearly bought. Even now, Sir John Chilcot’s landmark inquiry is helping to set the contours for the way we see discretionary, expeditionary warfare. I think it is fair to say that few of us at the time anticipated the long shadows that would be cast by Operations Telic and Herrick.
Whatever one’s views of the wisdom and judgment of those who preceded us, it is unarguable that our brave men and women stepped up to the plate as only soldiers, sailors and aviators can. Despite enormous pressure, they went on to do remarkable things. It is their service and sacrifice that I want to reflect on tonight, as the hon. Gentleman did. As I do so, and as a Wiltshire MP who represents a garrison town, I remember the silence—the silence of Royal Wootton Bassett as the flag-draped coffins rolled by.
Of course, we make decisions in this place that change lives all the time, but the consequences of some are more stark—more vivid—than others. As the hon. Gentleman remarked, Operation Telic involved a vast military effort. It was one of the largest deployments since the end of world war two and involved all three services. Some 46,000 troops were deployed, among them 9,500 reservists. The UK sent 19 warships, 14 Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service vessels, 15,000 vehicles, 115 fixed-wing aircraft and nearly 100 helicopters. They in turn were supported in the United Kingdom and elsewhere by an army of civilians and contractors. Many of those individuals would never have experienced a conflict remotely like this one. Some would have served as peacekeepers in Bosnia and Kosovo. Some would even have taken part in the first Gulf war to liberate Kuwait, yet that conflict was won within 42 days. This one dragged on for years.
Yet, as I recall, in the early days, hopes had been high for a swift resolution thanks to an impressive series of lightning successes. Overcoming stiff resistance, our forces achieved their first objective at the port of Umm Qasr. They then moved on to take Basra, Iraq’s second largest city. Again, the 7th Armoured Brigade, the famous Desert Rats, despite participating in the biggest tank battle by UK forces since the second world war and despite constant harrying from Iraqi regular troops and Fedayeen militia, emerged victorious. Within a month, the UK, alongside its coalition allies, had accomplished nearly all its military goals. The brutal dictator Saddam Hussein had fled. His regime had evaporated. Key infrastructure had been secured. And cheering crowds congregated on Baghdad streets to welcome coalition forces and topple Saddam’s vainglorious statute into the dust. Meanwhile, stringent targeting and unprecedented use of precision weapons had kept UK and Iraqi casualties to a minimum.
But that was the high point. As the late Sir John Chilcot documented in his report, there had been a shocking lack of preparation for regime change. What followed was a bitter and bloody insurgency. Mobs murdered Royal Military police. An RAF Hercules was shot out of the sky. Soldiers were ambushed by snipers. Fighters were attacked with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. The improvised explosive device became a staple of the news bulletins. Borne by vehicles, buried in the ground or dumped in piles of rubbish, the notorious IEDs claimed and maimed many lives. By the time the UK left in 2011, thousands had been wounded and 179 British troops had paid the ultimate price. Today, our thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones of all who lost their lives and who suffered life-changing injuries.
James Sunderland
Our armed forces bear arms voluntarily through choice and because of the duty they have in doing their job. But it is not just about being told what to do; it is also because they believe in that particular cause. May I ask the Minister, on that very serious point, to confirm to the House that, for all future operations and all future decisions taken to deploy armed forces in possible expeditionary warfare, that rigour will be employed with every decision, we will not take that good will for granted, and there will be a very good reason for the use of force?
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, of course; as a soldier, he knows full well the horrors of war and what war means. No Government would join battle willingly and, as I said in my early remarks, lessons have been learned from this pair of conflicts that we have had in the 21st century. Only a very imprudent Government would embark upon such an initiative or initiatives now, knowing what we now know about the nature and consequences of this kind of operation and the long shadow that it casts—in the case of Iraq, of course, we are living with it still. Some, I am afraid, live with it more than others.
Twenty years on, the Iraq war remains deeply controversial and contested. Whether it was for good or ill, the decisions taken then have continued to shape our attitude to military interventionism. Yet although we can continue to debate the politics, what is not up for discussion is the fact that the soldiers, sailors and aviators of Operation Telic at no point gave less than their all. Those who wear the Iraq campaign medal should do so with pride. It is also worth reflecting that today Iraq and the UK share a close and enduring bond, as well as a determination to defeat Daesh finally and for good, and a desire to enjoy peace and stability.
This afternoon, I had the very great privilege of laying a wreath at the Iraq and Afghanistan memorial that stands just outside the MOD main building. It is a powerful sculpture, carved out of Portland stone—unusual in that it contains no names of the fallen. In fact, only two words are etched on to its smooth surface: “duty” and “service”. The veterans of Operation Telic did their duty. Their service was exemplary. They were, and remain, the very best of us.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It is right that we commemorate the bravery of our service personnel and the ultimate sacrifice of the 179. I thank you, Mr Jarvis, for bringing this debate to Parliament today. We will remember them. We have today.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Home Detention Curfew) Order 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Home Detention Curfew) Order 2023.
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. The home detention curfew scheme has been in place for more than two decades and is an important tool in safely managing the transition of eligible offenders from custody back into the community. It does so by enabling certain lower-risk prisoners to be released from prison early, while remaining subject to significant restrictions on their liberty, including a curfew, which is monitored by an electronic tag.
The draft statutory instrument before us forms part of wider changes that we are making to that scheme. Our changes put public protection first, while ensuring closer scrutiny and supervision in the community for those less serious offenders who are ready to be released on home detention curfew. We will be making changes to the eligibility criteria and risk assessment set out in the HDC policy framework, which will mean fewer people are released on HDC overall, the public are better protected, and a clear message is sent to domestic abusers. Tackling violence against women and girls is a Government priority. It is abhorrent and preventable, and an issue that blights the lives of millions.
Certain offenders, such as sex offenders and those convicted of child cruelty offences, are already excluded or presumed unsuitable for home detention curfew. We will add to the “presumed unsuitable” list any offenders currently serving a sentence of imprisonment for 11 offences that are often linked to domestic abuse, such as stalking, harassment, breach of protective orders—restraining orders, for example—controlling and coercive behaviour, and non-fatal strangulation and suffocation. Adding those offences to the list will mean that those offenders will not be considered for release on HDC unless the governor is satisfied that there are truly exceptional circumstances justifying it and that their risk can be safely managed in the community.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for putting women’s safety at the heart of this. Can he give me the assurance that I can tell women in Chelmsford that it is absolutely the case that those who have been found guilty of domestic abuse and other violent crimes against women will be kept in prison and not released in this way?
Damian Hinds
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend and I do want to give her that reassurance—that we are extending the list of people who will be presumed ineligible for this programme to include those 11 new offences. Actually, it is part of a broader scheme and some changes that we brought in last year, which I will come to in a moment. It goes beyond, necessarily, that which a person was imprisoned for; often, we need to consider wider intelligence as well.
Assessment of risks to those at the curfew address is key and will remain so, but it is also absolutely right that risks to the public more generally are taken into account. We will therefore be mandating that public protection as a whole is considered in the risk assessment for someone being considered for home detention curfew, and that all necessary information sharing takes place before a decision on HDC release is made. This builds on changes that I alluded to in response to my right hon. Friend’s question—changes that we introduced last year. Since April 2022, it has been mandatory for the community offender manager to request information from the police and children’s services about domestic abuse or child safeguarding risks associated with the offender or the proposed address, to help to inform the assessment of HDC suitability. Home detention curfew must not be authorised until that information has been obtained and assessed. But we are clear that we must go further, and that is why we are making these changes today.
At the same time, the purpose of the draft instrument is to extend the maximum period of the existing home detention curfew scheme by 45 days. That extends the benefits of the scheme for eligible, suitable offenders, helping to support their rehabilitation in the community with a view to reducing reoffending. That will mean that some people will spend longer on HDC, but no change is being made to the minimum period that someone must have served in custody before being released on HDC.
Although fewer people will be released, the number who are on HDC at any one time will grow because of the longer period to be spent under curfew. There are currently around 1,850 offenders on HDC. The combined effect of these planned changes will be to increase that number by around 300, which means that the prison population at any one time will be lower by around 300.
Our changes pull in both directions on prison population because, while we think it right to exclude those convicted of stalking, harassment and other offences, we also think it right to extend the HDC period for the limited cohort of offenders assessed as suitable for the scheme. When I refer to the “limited cohort”, it is worth bearing in mind that, of the total cohort who could, on the face of it, be eligible for such a scheme, some two thirds do not go on it.
The change will provide a longer transition from custody to community for a smaller cohort of eligible, risk-assessed offenders, allowing them to work towards rehabilitation in the community while remaining subject to strict conditions. The electronically monitored curfew is a significant restriction on their liberty. If the curfew or any other conditions of their licence, such as the requirement to report to probation, are breached, they can be recalled to prison.
Electronic monitoring is also an opportunity for offenders to break habits that have led them into offending previously, improve chances for employment and training, and help to maintain positive relationships. We have enhanced our use of electronic monitoring across the board, which is supported by ever-improving technology and the broader use of GPS tagging, which allows us to monitor offenders when they are away from the curfew address where necessary and not just whether they are at home during curfew hours.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Will the Minister give us a reassurance that the new GPS monitors—the tags—will make it safer to have prisoners at home under curfew, compared with the current situation, and that that will allow victims to feel reassured that, when perpetrators are released under the new system, they will be properly monitored?
Damian Hinds
There are different layers to that extra reassurance about safety. Risk assessment is one part of that and the exclusion of more offenders is another, but the technology itself is an important part of the picture. All tagging technology improves over time, and we also get “learning by doing” effects from its wider deployment.
As well as RF or radio frequency tagging, which is a binary thing that basically detects whether the individual is where they are supposed to be or not—“Are you in your curfew address or not?”—these days there is also the option, where that is deemed appropriate and suitable, of GPS tagging, which can track where an individual actually goes. There are multiple benefits to that—for example, in monitoring exclusion zones or, if somebody is supposed to be going to work on a daily basis, ensuring that that is in fact what they are doing. We also now have alcohol tagging, to detect whether people have complied with an alcohol order.
Home detention curfew is an effective approach for the management of lower-risk offenders, and it allows for their safe and controlled reintegration from prison into the community. I look forward to today’s debate, and I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Home detention curfew is a robust tool that can aid in the supervised resettlement of offenders into society. Our concern is that the Government’s proposed extension is not being made in the interests of reintegration, but that it is instead an emergency measure and a rushed, knee-jerk reaction to prison overcrowding—yet another sticking plaster policy from a Government who lurch from one crisis to another.
The Government’s failure to get to grips with our prison system meant that in December they needed to enact the contingency Operation Safeguard, yet the scale of the problem is so deep that the contingency plan now requires a contingency of its own. That is why we are here today to debate this measure. If resettlement and rehabilitation were truly the Government’s focus, we would not see prisoners locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day, prison violence at record highs and engagement with rehabilitation programmes at record lows, or prison officers leaving in droves. Those are the problems after 13 years of the Conservatives; and the scale of the problems runs deeper still. Our probation service is a shadow of its former self after 13 years of Government mismanagement, cuts and organisational change.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I recognise the essential importance of rehabilitation. Does the hon. Lady agree that the opportunity to allow prisoners to spend longer on HDC as they approach the end of their sentence will aid their rehabilitation by enabling them to take part in community support outside prison?
Ellie Reeves
If HDC is done properly, it can work well, but my concern is that this measure is being rushed through, without a properly thought-out process. I will talk a bit about the probation service and the challenges that it is already facing. This measure comes on top of that and will increase its workload further, which is why I have real concerns about how this will work in practice.
The probation service now faces severe staff shortages and unmanageable workloads, and morale is at rock bottom. All of that has led to a failure to monitor dangerous criminals, putting the public at risk. Meanwhile, we hear time and again of prisoners who have been released to sleep rough on the streets or drift back into drug abuse, making them more likely to commit further crimes. And what did we hear from the Government last week? They are forcing 5% of headquarters staff to move back to the frontline.
It is another sticking-plaster policy in response to 13 years of failure, and today’s proposals will likely add a further burden to an already overstretched probation service. They mean that officers will need to complete more HDC assessments, testing the suitability of the proposed release address and examining any previous behaviours by the prisoner on licence or bail. However, the chief inspector of probation recently detailed the current poor standard of risk assessments, with two thirds of those inspected being insufficient. If risk assessments are done quickly, there is a real danger that they will not be completed to the required standard and so the public may be at risk from those released.
We need assurances from the Minister today about what will be done to ensure that the probation service has the capacity to take on the sudden spike in cases from implementing this plan. How will the Government ensure that assessments are not rushed but are properly carried out? Can the Minister confirm that all those released early will have the same checks as they otherwise would have had, including home visits, checks on the proposed release address, and domestic abuse call-outs?
In conclusion, real harm is being done by the chaos in our criminal justice system.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
The home detention scheme was introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and came into force in January 1999. The period has been extended twice—first to 90 days in October 2002 and then to the current 135 days in April 2003. The hon. Lady’s party was in power on those three occasions: the introduction and the two subsequent extensions. Does she not think that the arguments that the current Government are making for this measure—logical arguments, for evidence-based decisions—are probably the same as those that were made when her party was last in power?
Ellie Reeves
I am grateful for those points, but I have outlined in my speech some of the huge capacity issues that we see in the probation service when it comes to properly assessing and managing risk. That is why the Opposition are seeking assurances that the Minister recognises these, and that increasing the amount of time that someone can spend on home detention curfew will not make the public less safe. That is what we are concerned about. There is a capacity issue and it needs to be addressed. We need those reassurances.
Rushed attempts to clear people out of prison are not a replacement for the proper management of rehabilitation. I hope that the Minister will respond to these concerns and outline how the Government will ensure that prisoners are properly risk assessed before release, and how the public will be kept safe.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady speaking for the Opposition, to all colleagues who have taken part in the debate and to everybody on the Committee for their scrutiny of the instrument. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West said, the order will extend the benefits of this well-established scheme by changing the maximum period of home detention curfew to 180 days.
To respond to the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge, I must say that I do not recognise some of what she set out. It is the case that we are expanding the Prison Service, and quite rightly so. We are keeping dangerous offenders behind bars for longer, having moved back the automatic release point for the worst offences from half to two thirds. We have seen longer custodial sentences for indictable offences, and it is absolutely right that we must ensure that we have the infrastructure and dedicated workforce in place to manage that.
We are creating 20,000 new prison places, 3,200 of which have already been delivered, while a further 5,200 are already contracted. Those places will come through a mix of different delivery options, including new prisons—one opened last year, and another new, whole prison is due to open in a couple of months’ time. We are also putting in place rapid deployment cells, making extensions, building new house blocks and rightly increasing the capacity of our prison system to ensure that we can house the people who need to be in it.
In toto, the changes in this instrument work in two different directions, as I said earlier. They increase the maximum length of time from four and a half to six months—of course, not everybody gets the maximum—which will take some pressure off prison places, whereas the exclusions we are making, which make more people ineligible for the programme, will increase the pressure on prison places. The net effect will be about 300 places, which one needs to put in the context of a prison population of some 84,000 people. I can give the hon. Member the reassurance that the necessary checks will be made diligently. We are also ensuring that the sequence is right, to ensure that things must have happened before the next stage in the process can go forward.
I echo the hon. Member’s words of appreciation for the dedicated people who do such incredibly important work in our Prison Service and in the probation service. We should see this increase of 300 additional people at any one time in the context of the probation service’s caseload, which is much bigger than many people realise—some 170,000 people are on probation supervision of one sort or another in the community. As with the Prison Service, we are committed to ensuring that the probation service is well resourced, and we are recruiting at pace to ensure that that can happen as well.
In conclusion, we are taking a balanced approach. We will ensure that those who commit serious crimes spend time in prison that reflects the gravity of their offences. We will ensure that we keep the policy under review, as we keep all policies under review, and I will commit to coming back to Parliament in 12 months’ time and reporting on the overall effectiveness of the programme. For other, lower-risk offenders, where they can benefit safely from the long-established and successful HDC scheme, it makes sense that we should allow a somewhat longer period of release, subject to curfew, supporting their transition into the community with a view to reducing reoffending. I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Health Education England (Transfer of Functions, Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health Education England (Transfer of Functions, Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful to be in the Committee today to debate these important regulations, which are intended to transfer all the functions of Health Education England to NHS England and to abolish Health Education England. They use powers under section 103 of the Health and Care Act 2022 that allow regulations to transfer functions between relevant bodies listed in the Act and to abolish a body if that transfer of functions has made it redundant.
The merger is in line with a recommendation from the Public Accounts Committee back in 2020 to review the effectiveness of having a separate body overseeing the planning and supply of the NHS’s future workforce, which the Department of Health and Social Care accepted.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Regardless of the transition and of who is in charge of education to train the doctors and nurses of the future, we need a lot more of them. Will the Minister assure us that the workforce plan that the Government are going to publish will deliver the doctors and nurses we need to meet rising healthcare need?
Will Quince
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need medics across the NHS in various functions: consultants, doctors, surgeons, allied health professionals, nurses, nursing associates, apprentices and so much more. That is exactly why we commissioned NHS England to undertake a long-term workforce plan. She will know that the Chancellor set out in the autumn statement, and reiterated in the recent Budget, that we will publish that plan very shortly—certainly this spring. It will also be independently verified. It will set out our plan and the workforce requirements for the next five, 10 and 15 years. It needs a bit of patience, but it is a hugely important piece of work because, as she rightly says, the NHS needs that workforce to plan for the future.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Carrying on from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said about the doctors and nurses of the future, one of the very successful things that this Government did five years ago was introduce 10 new medical schools. The one in Chelmsford at Anglia Ruskin University is hugely successful and the first new doctors will graduate in just a few weeks. It has some of the lowest drop-out rates anywhere in the country, and the new doctors want to stay locally. Will the Minister press the case for expanding very successful medical schools such as the one in Chelmsford?
Will Quince
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. She is absolutely right. I was due to visit her medical school but, unfortunately, because of illness I could not. I still very much hope to do so. She is right that we need to train more medics domestically, although we have international recruitment. We increased the number of doctors we train by 1,500—a 25% increase to 7,500 per year. I urge her to wait just a little longer for the long-term workforce plan, which will set out our requirements for the future and how we go about ensuring that we fill the places and get medics in training. I am conscious that doctors are one of those groups.
Both of my right hon. Friends talked about planning, which is very much at the heart of the regulations. Their intention is to more closely align workforce planning, which is currently the statutory function of Health Education England, with the service and financial planning responsibilities of NHS England. That will enable service, workforce and finance planning to be properly integrated in one place. Nationally and regionally, it will build on the work that has been done to develop the NHS people plan. It will also help to drive reforms in education and training further and faster so that employers can recruit the health professionals needed to provide the right care to patients in the future.
Merging Health Education England with NHS England will simplify the national system, leading the NHS to end the separate lines of accountability that exist for the two bodies. Currently, Health Education England is responsible for workforce planning, education and training, but NHS England is responsible for culture, retention, international recruitment, workforce and leadership. Uniting those functions will help us ensure a joined-up and long-term view of what our NHS workforce needs for the future.
I pay tribute to Health Education England’s leadership and staff throughout the organisation’s 10-year existence. It has played a hugely effective role in the delivery of growth in the number of health professionals trained in England. It has promoted the creation of new roles, such as nursing associates, and spearheaded reforms to professional training workforce growth; record numbers now work within our NHS. It was hugely flexible and effective during the pandemic, including by supporting the deployment of students to the frontline at critical moments.
I am delighted that as of 1 April this year, Dr Navina Evans will become the chief workforce, training and education officer in the new NHS England. Sir David Behan, the chair of Health Education England, was appointed as a non-exec director of NHS England on 1 July. Those appointments are both important, because they will ensure that there continues to be excellent national leadership of NHS education and training.
I know there will be concern in some quarters that the changes pose a risk of budgets being used for other purposes. However, we have put in place a number of measures, including ministerial oversight, to ensure that that will not be the case. I am happy to elaborate on that later if required. Very briefly, we will include objectives on the workforce within NHS England as part of the NHS England mandate. We will continue to monitor and track expenditure on education and training with, as I said, a ministerial chaired board to provide that important ministerial oversight and governance of the workforce in NHS England.
Health Education England and NHS England already work closely together to ensure that the NHS has the workforce that it needs for the future. As I said in response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet earlier, we have commissioned NHS England to develop that long-term workforce plan for the next five, 10 and 15 years’ time. In effect, that plan will look at the mix, the number of staff required, and the actions and reforms that will be necessary across our NHS to reduce supply gaps and—importantly—improve retention.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am sorry to have missed the beginning of the Minister’s remarks, but I want to make a case for dentistry in all this. Given that the aim of the draft regulations is to align the workforce more with local need, and that they are designed to improve care standards and workforce availability, will he look at the dental deserts such as Lincolnshire, where we cannot straight-forwardly access NHS dental care? There are more dentists in London than one could shake a stick at—there are even more than there are barbers—yet in Lincolnshire it is very hard to obtain a dentist. Would he look at that in terms of the strategic change that he has described?
Will Quince
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He is right to raise dentistry, because, as he rightly points out, there are dental deserts across the country. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), is looking closely at dentistry, including workforce and supply and the use of a skill mix. Of course, it does not have to be a dentist, as others who have similar qualifications can do a lot of work that a dentist does, including on children. My hon. Friend will publish a dental plan in the coming months, and I hope that addresses my right hon. Friend’s point.
In conclusion, the merger will continue to build on Health Education England’s great work, putting education and training at the heart of service planning for the long term. The draft regulations will simplify the architecture of our NHS at national and regional level and ensure it has the workforce that it needs now and in the future. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to represent the shadow Health and Social Care team. As has already been noted, the draft statutory instrument facilitates the merger of the body responsible for the education and training of the health workforce —Health Education England—with NHS England. We agree that it is a sensible move. With a wry smile, I conclude that it is yet another of the bureaucratic reforms introduced by Lord Lansley that are now being unpicked by this Government, although it is a sensible choice.
The Government have rightly stated that the purpose of the integration is to improve long-term workforce planning and strategy for healthcare staff recruitment within the NHS. Labour is committed to long-term workforce planning for the NHS and for social care, which would necessitate independent workforce projections. The fact that the NHS has not had a workforce plan since 2003 is staggering. We want the Government to get on and deliver a plan. Our plan or their plan—a plan—would be great. For that reason, we will not oppose these measures.
I wish, however, to raise a couple of points on which I would appreciate some clarity from the Minister. When we debated the merger of NHS Digital and NHS England in January, I made the point to the Minister that we must ensure that talent and expertise are retained. I do so again today. Given that we are looking at an estimated 40% cut in workforce numbers, we need to ensure that NHS England still has the staffing resources it needs to function adequately in this sphere. Will the Minister provide an update on how that work is progressing? What assurances can he give to Members that staff are being treated fairly throughout the process? Can he also set out what specific service improvements he anticipates as a consequence of the merger, and what metrics will his Department use to judge NHS England’s performance within its new remit?
It was recently reported that a £100 million redundancy budget has been set for the mergers, alongside a £13 million contract to PA Consulting to oversee the merger. I do not quote those sums to put the Minister on the spot, but instead to reinforce that public money is being spent, so we need to ensure that we see positive results at the end of the process. That is something we want to see, which is why I ask about it in the spirit of co-operation.
Finally, given that the merger will, according to the Government, put healthcare staff recruitment and retention at the forefront of the national NHS agenda, can the Minister outline when the NHS workforce plan will be published? He gave an indication to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet that it would be soon. I am a little more impatient than that, given that we have not had one since 2003. Also, what will NHS England’s role be within that workforce plan when we get it?
The Opposition will not oppose these very sensible regulations.
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support and that of the Opposition Front-Bench team. I will go through his questions in reverse order. First, the NHS long-term workforce plan is coming shortly. I know that is a broad term when it comes to the Government. It is a bit like spring—it can stretch all the way to June and July—but it will be published shortly and it is being finalised. I cannot be more precise than that. It will certainly be soon. We commissioned it, and NHS England drafted and produced it, and will be integral in delivering against it.
He mentioned talent and expertise being retained across both Health Education England and NHS England as the two organisations are merged. He is absolutely that all Health Education England staff will automatically transfer to NHS England. The merged organisation will reduce in size by between 30% and 40% by April 2024. However, it is important to stress that both NHS England and Health Education England have already had recruitment controls in place since July 2022. They also launched an initial voluntary redundancy scheme in January 2023. Of course, we keep a watchful eye on that because we want to ensure that we are maintaining the very best talent and expertise in the area, especially given the importance of workforce to the short, medium and long-term future of the NHS.
The hon. Gentleman asked about performance and how we will monitor performance. That is done in a number of ways. First, on performance and what good looks like, the merger is designed to help us ensure that service, workforce and financial planning are integrated into one place, at both a national and a local level. That is what we are trying to achieve through the regulations. We are also trying to ensure that we drive change in education and training much further and faster than we can at the moment through HEE.
That will be monitored in two ways. First, through robust governance, as we will set objectives and place them on the NHS England mandate. We will also have a ministerial chaired board. I suspect that I—or the occupant of my role, at least—will chair that, but that is not confirmed. Also, we will ensure that we have clear governance plans in place to track and monitor performance going forward. That is particularly important in addressing some of the concerns that people have about the NHS England training budget, given the importance of the workforce to the NHS. I think something like 65% of all the funding allocated to the NHS rightly goes on the workforce—the beating heart of the NHS.
I hope that answers all the questions from the Committee. I thank the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, the representative for His Majesty’s Opposition, and all hon. and right hon. Members for their interventions and contributions. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
North Northamptonshire Unitary Council’s Care Provider Services Strategy
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
Cash Acceptance
(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
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I want to put on the record that we are delighted to see so many members of the public in the Public Gallery for this important debate. I ask that everybody’s phones are turned off and that we keep noise to a minimum to allow Members to enjoy the flow of debate and for those watching at home.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 605030 and 622284, relating to the acceptance of cash.
It is genuinely a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. The petitions before us attracted more than 58,500 signatures between them, having closed on 5 July 2022 and 10 March this year respectively. I thank the creators and signatories of the two petitions. Their actions have meant we are here today to debate an issue that is clearly of interest and concern to many people across the UK.
The petitioners call on the Government to:
“Make it illegal for retailers and services to decline cash payments”,
and to:
“Require all businesses and public services to accept cash payments”,
with the exception of internet-based businesses. They argue:
“Not everyone wants a digital trail and others simply cannot pay by card.”
The petitioners expressed concern about cashless payments creating an “enforced dependency on banks” and a
“threat to privacy as people cannot make anonymous payments.”
They stated:
“If we wish to uphold freedom of choice and the right to privacy, it is imperative that we protect the use of cash.”
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
In response to the Petitions Committee’s online survey, 61% of respondents said that they use cash to help with budgeting and, in the light of the cost of living crisis, by way of tracking their spending. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government must recognise and protect cash as a tool that helps people to survive the cost of living crisis?
Martyn Day
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, I emphasise that it is essential not only for many people who budget, but for those on lower incomes, the elderly and those with disabilities, who need that facility the most.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
As my hon. Friend mentioned, freedom of choice is imperative. Currently, we need cash and card. We need to make everyone comfortable with the direction of travel. Does he agree that an education programme is required akin to the one we had back in the day when we introduced decimalisation? Given the average age of people in the room, I may have to explain what decimalisation is.
Martyn Day
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am perhaps giving my age away, but I came in with decimalisation. I recall the ready reckoners that my elderly relatives had for me to play with as a toy many years ago. An education programme would be helpful. In 20 to 30 years from now we will be in a different place, but here and now there is a real demand for cash, particularly for many vulnerable groups, such as disabled users who need cash and may not even have their own bank accounts.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Just in case the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) was referring to those of us with more experience, I should say there was a time in 1971, when I was selling coin-operated tea and coffee machines, when someone wrote in saying, “The elderly will find the new coins difficult. The elderly don’t live forever; could the change be postponed until they’re all dead?”
The more serious point, which will be shared throughout the House, is that people should not be excluded from being able to buy or pay for things just because they do not have a card or an account. Many people rely on the use of cash. Those businesses that do not need their custom ought to be told, “You should have it because you should not exclude people just because they aren’t up to date or a 14-year-old with a debit card.”
Martyn Day
The Father of the House makes a valid point, and one that I shall echo a number of times as I make progress through my speech—if there are no other interventions.
Zachary Stiling, creator of the more recent petition, told me:
“We must protect the individual’s right to use cash in all physical transactions. While there are many obvious advantages to digital payments, it is not suitable at all times or for all people…There are dangerous political implications with going cashless, as instances of banks and financial service providers closing accounts for political reasons are not unprecedented and are clearly at odds with liberal society’s cornerstone of freedom of belief.”
As we have heard from a number of interventions, freedom of choice is a central tenet of this issue. To be clear, the choice to use cash is still one that many people wish to make. Indeed, 95% of respondents to the Petitions Committee survey ahead of this debate stated that they preferred to use cash to pay for things over other means of payment. I know from my own experience that I would be happier using cash when I am in a pub or a restaurant than when I am shopping. It is different horses for different courses.
Figures from the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce 2022 cash census showed that 96% of people withdraw cash at some frequency, with 83% having cash either in their wallet or at home. Furthermore, figures from the Financial Conduct Authority’s 2022 “Financial Lives” survey showed that 6% of adults in the UK had used cash to pay for everything, or for most things, over the 12 months from May 2021. That is a significant number of people.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Last year, I was at a coffee outlet in London City airport that only took cards. A constituent asked me to take up the issue, which I did. A few weeks later, it introduced a process for cash and card. Three months later, the constituent sent me a photograph of a sign saying, “Cards not working today, only cash.” How ironic was that?
Martyn Day
The hon. Member makes a very good point on which I wholeheartedly agree. As I said, 6% of adults use cash payment for almost everything. That figure increases to 9% of those in the most vulnerable circumstances. I shall return later to the impact of cash refusal on the most vulnerable in our society.
Although the covid-19 pandemic undoubtedly affected payment habits, there has been both a sustained, albeit partial, recovery and a stabilisation in trends around the use of cash, as noted by the Bank of England in its third quarter bulletin in 2022. The Bank also noted that the value of bank notes in circulation remains close to an historic high, reflecting the fact that up to 60% of the population are holding more cash as a store of value.
Beyond freedom of choice, there are other clear benefits to using cash. One benefit for retailers is that unlike card schemes, for which they must pay set-up and transaction fees to providers, with cash every penny goes to them. Another benefit that should not be underestimated is the role that cash can play when other payment methods fail, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) illustrated. I am sure that many of our constituents have had the experience of being unable to use online services or cards in the face of card rejection, IT glitches or system outages.
I can give an example from my own life, when I visited a friend who was recovering from surgery in hospital. I stopped for fuel on the way, which was lucky for me because although I had no cash in my pocket, my card was accepted, and when I got to their house I had an email from my bank telling me that it thought there had been a suspicious card transaction so my card had been stopped; had I tried to buy fuel on the way home, I would have had no means of paying for it. Cash is essential.
Margaret Ferrier
Figures show that 70% of people prefer to use cash because they are concerned about the privacy of alternative forms of payments, and 49% said they used cash because of concerns about fraud. Does my hon. Friend understand the worries that a move to a cashless society could militate against consumer privacy and may leave sectors of society more vulnerable to fraud?
Martyn Day
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s good points. It appears to be something that concerns very many people. Research from Which? has shown that 82% of Scottish consumers are likely to keep cash in case electronic payments are down.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the importance of having the choice to use cash. Does he agree that access to cash is fundamental to this debate? In order for people to have the choice to use cash, access to it is at the basis of all that we are seeking to do.
Martyn Day
Absolutely, and I will come to that later in my speech. I hope the Minister takes cognisance of that well-made point.
There are also those who have valid privacy concerns about electronic payments. In an age of technology, algorithms, digital footprints and cyber-crimes, it is understandable that some—perhaps many—of our constituents would prefer the financial privacy offered by cash transactions. Some constituents wrote to me in recent weeks to make that point. Many stated that they regard barriers to using cash as a violation of their right to privacy. Cash clearly remains an important and valued part of our transactional landscape. As such, the ability to access and use cash must be protected.
In their response to both petitions, the Government state:
“The Government does not intend to mandate cash acceptance.”
They say that they will instead make provisions through the Financial Services and Markets Bill to ensure reasonable access to infrastructure such as withdrawal and deposit facilities. Of course, the availability of such infrastructure is clearly a concern for consumers and businesses. In Scotland, 53% of bank branches have closed since 2015, and since 2018 some 20% of Scotland’s free-to-use ATMs have closed. In many communities, banks have withdrawn completely, often leaving the post offices as the last place in town to do basic banking.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about banks closing; the bank on my high street is still open but will not give cash and directs people to the post office. Does he agree that it is appalling that we have banks on our high streets that are not providing the services that customers want?
Martyn Day
Absolutely; the hon. Gentleman makes a good point, for which I thank him. I am flabbergasted that a bank is not dealing with cash—it beggars belief.
The issues raised need to be addressed, but protecting access to cash is not the same as protecting the right to use cash—a right that, for many, amounts to an absolute necessity. For some of our constituents, not being able to use cash is a profound barrier in everyday life. Cash can be a vital means of budgeting. As noted in the 2019 access to cash review, that is especially true for those on lower incomes. The 2022 cash census identified that there are cash users who are highly dependent on cash for budgeting and would struggle to swich to digital payments. It concluded that 15 million people in the UK use cash to budget. That is backed up by the responses to the Petitions Committee survey: 61% of respondents stated that they use cash to budget.
Earlier, I touched on the impact of cash refusal on vulnerable groups, to which I now return. The access to cash review drew a stark conclusion. It identified that more than 8 million adults in the UK
“would struggle to cope in a cashless society. For many people in the UK, using cash is not a matter of choice, but of necessity.”
It highlighted that
“poverty is the biggest indicator of cash dependency”.
Dependence on cash is closely tied to barriers to digital connectivity—for example, for those living in rural areas and those with low or no digital engagement.
In its 2022 policy briefing on the subject, Age Scotland raised the importance of cash for older people. It highlighted that many on low or fixed incomes prefer to use cash to budget. It also noted that
“140,000 adults in Scotland do not have bank accounts”,
and that
“34%...of over 60s in Scotland do not use the internet”.
Furthermore, a 2020 survey by the Financial Conduct Authority explored the relationship between cash usage and factors including education, health and wealth. It noted that 26% of those in poor health use cash to a great extent, and that some people with physical or cognitive disabilities find payment methods other than cash difficult to use.
Margaret Ferrier
My hon. Friend is generous to give way again. It has been reported that about 10% of people have been unable to pay for medical supplies with cash. We know that older people and those with some physical and mental health problems prefer using cash. Is my hon. Friend concerned that certain societal groups may be at risk of being unable to access the medical care they require if they cannot pay with cash?
Martyn Day
That is a valid concern that I hope the Minister will address when he responds to the debate.
Some 8% of respondents to the Petitions Committee survey said that they had a physical or mental health issue that made using alternatives to cash difficult. The issues included bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, depression, arthritis, visual impairment, cognitive disability and strokes. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the impact of cash refusal is felt acutely by those on lower incomes, those who experience barriers to digital payments, those who are disabled, and those with physical or mental health conditions. Indeed, the Government acknowledge that in their response, stating that they want to ensure that vulnerable people
“have appropriate access to banking”
and payment services.
However, to reiterate my earlier point, protecting access to banking and payment provisions, although important, does not address the issue of cash acceptance. There is growing evidence that cash refusal is becoming a very real issue. The covid-19 pandemic has undoubtedly accelerated the cashless trend. As Which? research has shown, the pandemic led to an increase in the number of retailers that refuse to accept cash. The cash census similarly found that as the economy reopened in the summer of 2020, retailers were increasingly going cashless, with 42% of people reporting that they had visited a shop that did not accept cash in July 2020.
The results of the Petitions Committee’s survey also make for stark reading: 77% of respondents said that a business had refused to let them purchase something with cash, with the most common refusals of cash coming from restaurants, takeaways and transport; and 88% said that cash refusal had a large or moderate impact on them, describing feelings of embarrassment or anxiety as a result.
Our daily lives are filled with examples of the cashless trend as the consumer experience becomes increasingly dominated by technology, from bus companies encouraging people to use contactless payments to card-only self-checkout machines in supermarkets. However, the march towards cashless risks the exclusion of a great many people and a profound and negative impact on their lives.
The Government’s current position of focusing on infrastructure but ultimately leaving the decision in respect of cash acceptance to individual businesses simply does not go far enough. It is essential that gaps in the provision of banking facilities are addressed so that people can access cash easily in their community and small business owners do not have to travel many miles to access deposit facilities. However, that alone does not guarantee cash acceptance. It is a difficult issue for many businesses, especially where the ability to deposit cash might involve lengthy journeys away from their business.
The Association of Convenience Stores advises that 60% of transactions in independent convenience stores are paid in cash, and that 99% of shops in its sector continue to accept cash, with retailers striving to give customers access to their preferred payment options. While supporting access to cash to facilitate financial inclusion, the ACS would rather the decision on what payment methods to accept be left to individual businesses and not mandated by the Government, whereas an overwhelming 98% of respondents to the Petitions Committee survey agreed with the petitioners that shops and services should be required to accept cash. This is clearly an issue that affects and concerns many of our constituents, customers and businesses alike. The Government need a plan to ensure that those dependent on cash are not left behind, and part of that must be about protecting their right to use cash.
The UK Cash Supply Alliance has called for businesses to be required by law to accept cash payments for in-person services equivalent to the maximum value of contactless transactions. In their response, the Government talk a lot about what is reasonable—“reasonable access”, “reasonable provision” and so on. Ensuring that individuals and businesses have easy and convenient access to banking facilities is not only reasonable but essential, and a requirement to accept cash for lower-value transactions is also reasonable. To have the certainty that when we walk into a shop or restaurant our cash will be accepted is reasonable and, for many, vital. The Government can and must act to protect access to cash, the ability to use that cash, and the ability of businesses to easily deposit that cash. Those are very much connected issues, and they must be equally addressed.
This is a complex issue, and I am aware that I have touched on a lot of different factors in a short space of time. Indeed, I could have touched on many other factors, but I look forward to comments from other Members. I have covered some factors in more detail than others, and I look forward to the Government’s response at the end of the debate.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for such a good speech, and for hosting today’s debate. We are discussing a topic that I find greatly interesting. In a previous life—not many Members realise this—I was a businessman, but also a postmaster, or at least I had the legal title of a postmaster. As such, understanding retailing as I do, access to cash is an absolute necessity in all parts of society, particularly, as has been mentioned, in rural communities. It is therefore important that we discuss the thorny issue, which has already been touched on, of the wilful negligence of banks in closing their branches on our high streets up and down the country, despite all of the changing public behaviour, and the issue of traders accepting cash as payment.
Despite the advances of technology and those changing consumer behaviour patterns, it is clear to me that the acceptance of cash should remain an option for the foreseeable future. The country at large, and the public, are simply not in a position to close that door off. All the research that has ever been conducted in this area shows that people must be able to still access cash.
In 2021, I presented my own Banking Services (Post Offices) Bill. It did not get very far, but, nevertheless, the intention was to try to ensure that banks were required to offer banking services for their customers, including the provision of cash, via the post office network. The 11,500 post office branches on our high streets seemed like absolutely the right place to be the authorised financial services dealer to enable cash to always be accessed on our high streets.
Margaret Ferrier
Cambuslang, in my constituency, was honoured to host a bank hub, through the pilot scheme between post offices and the high street banks, to help protect community access to cash at a time when more and more banks were facing closure on local high streets. The hub on Cambuslang’s Main Street has been a great success and very popular with constituents. Does the hon. Member agree that more bank hubs could and should be funded for communities in need?
Duncan Baker
I thank the hon. Member for her question. Yes, bank hubs would be a very good idea. The Minister will probably correct me, but I believe that the Government have initiated putting bank hubs in throughout the country. However, my point about using the post office network is that it is already there. There are already 11,500 post offices on our high streets.
Instead of a sweetheart deal with banking services between the Post Office and the Government, we should legislate, and make it legally binding that post offices must always be allowed to offer banking services, so that we do not have some bank, at the drop of a hat, withdrawing its services because it does not like the deal that it is getting from the Post Office. We should set it in stone so that people and consumers always have that offering on the high street.
The European Central Bank found that cash remained the most frequent method of payment in 2022, at 59%. Despite that, and all of the research that we have outlined, we continue to see a steady decline of bank branches on our high streets. In 2021, 736 bank branches closed throughout the UK. From my constituency, I remember some of closures proposed by Barclays. The reason for closing was that the research indicated a drop in footfall. I said to the bank team that presented the findings, “We have had lockdown; consumers have not been able to go to the bank. You cannot possibly use a drop off in footfall as an excuse to shut a bank branch when the public have been prohibited from even accessing our towns and villages.” It was absolute madness.
In the east of England specifically, we saw a 39% decrease in the number of banks between 2012 and 2022. The far-reaching impacts that this has had, especially in areas where many older people live—I have the oldest demographic in the entire country—cause huge concern throughout my constituency and other rural areas, because all the research shows that the vulnerable and elderly are simply not able to go cashless at this moment in time.
I witnessed at first hand the serious impact of last year’s Barclays bank closure in my home town of Holt, where I was born, despite the fact that we are a centre for retail in the area. We have a huge number of visitors coming to Holt, and Barclays was the last bank in the town to close. Cue pandemonium for a retirement area with elderly people—a vibrant market town that is rich with many retail shops—who were left with no ability to do their banking, which affects not just residents and businesses but visitors, who also need access to cash. Luckily, we were able to use a banking hub, exactly as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) suggested, to try to safeguard people needing access to cash.
The research suggests that 10 million people would struggle to cope in a cashless society. Many of them are on low incomes and are older, but they also include people who have disabilities or ill health and those who run small businesses—a plethora of people across society. By preserving the physical infrastructure, whether through a post office or a banking hub, we also preserve the right for the most vulnerable to use cash, to make sure that they too can be looked after.
I was a retailer at one stage, so I appreciate traders’ attitudes towards accepting cash, which can become expensive. The banks make it expensive and more difficult for people to do their banking. If banks shut, people have to use courier services, which charge, and there is a delay in deposits coming into the bank. I understand that it is far easier to stop using cash, but that does not mean that it is the right thing to do. Limiting the acceptance of cash payments puts pressure on people, who can become financially excluded. It may be very difficult for the Government to enforce the preservation of cash payments in a free market, but they should be straining every sinew to incentivise providers and make sure that they continue to accept cash.
The access to cash review provided some sensible and feasible recommendations to help keep cash payments an option for the foreseeable future, and I am sure the Minister will have looked at it. The crux of all this is that I recognise that, at some point—one day—cash will begin to fizzle out, but it is fundamental that we help consumers for as long as physically possible, because it is necessary. It is not about stifling technology or progression. It is a fundamental basic requirement that millions and millions of people up and down the country still need access to cash.
The use of cash will always play a vital role for many people—for budgeting and for people who may have poor spending habits, because it is a great way to help people manage their bills. Keeping cash as a viable option will help to support those on low incomes and vulnerable people, as well as our high streets and small businesses. I do not think that cash should be something that we begin to dismiss and wind down. The crux of this is about not only keeping cash in circulation, but making sure that the Government play their part in ensuring that there is a proper, viable infrastructure for cash to circulate, which means doing something to legislate for the banks, whose corporate social responsibility has gone out of the window as they have closed as many branches as they can around the country. That has to be something we address as well.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for securing this important debate. I thank the Petitions Committee, and most importantly the petitioners who allowed the debate to happen today.
This is about compelling the acceptance of cash. There have been some important points made about the fact that the issue has real implications for budgeting for many households. At its heart is the systematic reduction in the availability of cash, which has accelerated the refusal of cash. If cash is taken out of the system, of course that makes it more difficult for businesses to make that choice. That does not mean they should be allowed to make the choice to refuse cash, which should continue to be an important part of the system.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for making such an important point. The reduction in banking facilities, especially in rural areas such as his and mine, has accelerated the move to a cashless society, as he rightly mentioned. With banking costs, the depositing of cash for businesses is becoming even harder and more expensive. Does he agree that in this conversation, the Government need to ensure that banking services, including deposit services, are retained in rural areas to make it easier for particularly small businesses to continue to accept cash?
Drew Hendry
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and his timely intervention. I will come on to that when I talk about the impacts on my constituency, which is largely rural.
Access to cash is vital for people across the communities in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. I have been speaking to people out and about in my constituency, and I want to relate some of the issues in the villages and towns. Although I will focus on one item for each of them, all these things affect all of them, all the time. It is vital for people living in the highlands to get access to cash. The lack of availability has direct impacts on our communities.
For example, Aviemore is a popular tourist destination. Large numbers of visitors come throughout the year. Cash means additional spend, and the lack of it can restrict add-on sales. Not everybody wants to tap their card. If there is an opportunity to spend some cash, they will spend it on smaller purchases, as well as some larger ones. Impulse buying is also restricted in the same way. That is all vital in an experience-based economy like we have, where visitors come to enjoy the different activities that they can take part in.
Kingussie and Newtonmore, like Aviemore, are in the Cairngorms national park area. There is limited infrastructure. The closure of bank branches and the reduction in the number of cash machines have made life in those villages far more difficult than it was before. For example, with the increased cost of transport, the extreme inconvenience makes life challenging and difficult for many, especially those with no access to private transport and precious little access to public transport.
People in Grantown-on-Spey, also in the Cairngorms national park, rely heavily on tourism as well. They are directly affected by access to cash. I can relate a personal experience from last year. The Grantown show is the big showpiece event of the year; people come from not only miles around but countries around the world to experience it. It is a fantastic event. However, by the opening time of the show last year, Grantown-on-Spey had run out of cash. The paltry cash machines that were left in the village after the others had been stripped out by the removal of the banks had actually run out, and all the shops that were able to issue cash said that they did not have any more to give out. That was before the thing had got into its swing. It is immeasurable and impossible to judge the impact that having no cash had on that key day for the local economy.
Nairn has been badly affected by bank closures and the reduction in the availability of cash. Businesses—whether they are microbusinesses, or small or medium businesses—have all historically relied on cash. It has been really difficult for businesses there, particularly looking at the struggles on the high street. The locals have performed miracles in keeping up interest in Nairn as an attractive place, and the local business improvement district organisation has done its utmost, but there has no doubt been an impact on Nairn’s ability to thrive. It is restricted from achieving its potential, at least in part.
Fort Augustus is a fantastically picturesque village at the southern end of Loch Ness in my constituency. Many older and disabled people there tell me that they rely on cash. It is a serious issue that affects people’s mobility; it affects their ability to manage their financial affairs and participate in social and economic activities in their local area. We have not even touched on younger people who are not at the point of accessing a bank account by tapping their phone or a card. They often start off with pocket money given to them in cash so they can start to learn about money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said, the ability to handle money and count it out is a vital part of financial education. There are unintended consequences to restricting the availability of cash because some people cannot access plastic.
The lack of access across my constituency is very noticeable now. It has had a significant impact on towns and villages. I cannot mention them all today, as it would take me ages to cover all the places in my constituency, but it is important to point out that these are real issues for real people in towns and villages. Other Members in this Chamber who have rural constituencies will have these issues in common. For many communities, this is an issue of sustainability, affecting tourism, businesses, young and older people and those with disabilities.
When we hear about a banking crisis the Government jump into action to protect the banks, but where is the same activity to support our communities who are in a banking crisis? They do not have banks or access to cash anymore. Where is the activity and energy for them? The Government need to step up and make sure there is continuity for people and a reversal of this journey to drain cash out of these communities the way that has happened.
There should be a move to increase cash machines. We hear about reasonable access, but what does that mean? They are just words without any meaning. What people in my communities want to know is where, how and when they can get access to the cash they need. Yes, I support the move towards more shared hubs, but let us make sure those hubs are available to all communities and that everybody can access them in the proper way. We should be requiring banks to supply cash, particularly in rural areas when there are events coming up. This should be about protecting cash payments and access to cash.
Finally, if we are to move to a situation where the Post Office takes the strain, that is fine, but post offices must be properly supported and recompensed for taking on this social need. They are next to breaking as well. If we are relying on post offices to pick up the slack, what do we do when post offices are no longer there? People are genuinely worried about that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk for bringing this debate forward. We could have another half a dozen debates about the effect of lack of access to cash. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what he is actually proposing to do to help communities to maintain the cash in their communities.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for introducing the debate.
When I was a child, scratching around in the earth in Somerset I happened upon what I thought was a stone—it was more like a flat pebble—but was, in fact, a Roman coin. Reflecting on that today, it strikes me that we have spent 2,000 years in this country handling real currency. Coins and, in more recent years, notes have been with us for such a long time. I am therefore alarmed that our generation might see the end of real hard currency.
Members have expressed many real concerns this afternoon. Thinking about rural areas like mine, I am most concerned about the plight of older people. Both my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and I get stacks of correspondence from elderly constituents who just cannot abide trying to remember the PIN for a card that they have no assurance works, and have no faith or trust is reliable. In October 2022, the Bank of England stated:
“Cash remains an important payment method in the UK, and a critical means of payment for many people.”
In addition I endorse what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said about children and educating them about money. We do not know what the consequences may be for a generation who are not schooled with tangible money, but they may not be able to budget quite as well as their parents’ or grandparents’ generations for that fact.
We should also think about how our small businesses are affected. In rural areas such as my part of Devon, small businesses are concerned about the closure of not only banks, but cash machines. The other day, I received correspondence from the secretary of the Axminster chamber of commerce, who pointed out that the town of Axminster lost its last bank last autumn, and the neighbouring town of Honiton is set to lose its last branch of HSBC this summer. This issue is affecting in quite a miserable fashion some of the small businesses that depend on being able to deposit and withdraw money locally.
Drew Hendry
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about businesses in rural areas. When these facilities are withdrawn, businesses often face insurmountable challenges in terms of what they then do, where they travel to and how they staff their businesses when they have to travel to different places to carry out transactions or indeed take on new methods. Sometimes they just do not have the time to do that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a significant issue that is never covered in any of our discussions?
Richard Foord
I completely agree. It is great that we have an opportunity today to hear reassurance from the Minister on what the Government are doing to address some of these concerns. We have to ensure that nobody is locked out of our society simply because it is seen as easier for others to use electronic payments. Some people are more inclined to give to charity or leave tips if they can do so with notes and coins.
I am also curious to know what the Government think of tax evasion in relation to tangible money. When the Government think about phasing out cash, do they have one eye on how small and medium-sized enterprises pay VAT? Is that a factor when they think about how we will access money in the future?
As I draw my reflections to a close, I want to talk about another personal experience, this time of travelling in China. Before the pandemic, I was working in China, and my Chinese colleagues found it hilarious that I had brought notes and coins with me, because they were so used to using Alipay on their mobile phones. In some societies, it has become unfashionable—really passé—to use coins and notes. I am proud that we live in a liberal democracy that serves to protect the rights of minorities. One of those rights ought to be the continued use of tangible cash.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for his presentation of the topic.
I declare an interest: I am a member of the Consumer Council for Link, which runs the national network of free-to-use ATMs. It also assesses the impact of banking closures and looks at what should replace them, whether it is a banking hub such as the one in Cambuslang, which the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned, or one of the alternatives.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and I are often in this Chamber discussing this very topic. When we were first here, almost three years ago, I made the point then the issues are twofold: acceptance of cash and access to cash. There is no point accessing cash if it cannot be spent, as she said; but here is no point accepting it in the first place if no one has it to spend.
This debate is not really about acceptance of cash; that is a misnomer. It is about who pays for our cash system. Is it businesses? Retailers do not get to keep every penny if people pay by cash, and the extra costs associated with handling cash and with the cash system are passed on to consumers. The financial services sector —everyone boos it quite happily—passes the cost on to account holders. Fundamentally, the cost of our cash system always ends up back with the customer. Tinkering with the intermediaries handling the cash and introducing new rules, as some have advocated today, will not change that fact, even if it makes for some media-friendly, savvy headlines in the Daily Mail.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Nothing in life is free; eventually, somebody has to pay for it. This trend has been driven by Governments of all colours for decades. The most significant move towards a cashless society was the Labour Government’s decision to prevent people from being able to access pensions at the post office by handing over a pension book, and insisting that all pensions go into bank accounts. There will have to be a different culture in Government before they have the authority to lecture banks.
Paul Maynard
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am not lecturing the banks on the basis of being a politician. I apologise if my approach today is technocratic, but I am not seeking to be political. The Minister can explain what the Government are actually doing on this front.
We have all had substantial lobbying on this issue. My inbox has been full of press clippings, videos of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and so on. I am a little troubled by the emphasis on the compulsory acceptance of cash, and particularly by the suggestion that we should adopt something like the Spanish legislation that limits card payments to a €30 minimum. If someone wants to spend less than €30, they cannot use a card. That seems to be the very opposite of payment choice, and the cost would be passed on to consumers through higher prices. The cost to retailers comes in the form of driving further to deposit the takings at the end of the day. If they have to drive a long distance, they might have to close earlier to get to the post office or bank before it closes. That means they forgo income, so they might have to raise their prices.
In my constituency, the signs in shops saying “No card payments under £3” or, “No card payments under £5” have disappeared since the pandemic. That is progress; it gives people more choice. New technology, such as handheld card readers, has made payments both easier and cheaper, although I recognise that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) might intervene to say that broadband is still not good enough in many rural areas to make such things reliable, particularly in the tourism sector.
Before people out there start to shout at me, let me say that I certainly do not believe that cash should be killed off and that the future is entirely digital—far from it. People will always need cash, particularly the financially vulnerable and marginalised in society. My constituency of Blackpool North and Cleveleys has eight of the 10 poorest neighbourhoods in the country, and I know that some people rely on cash to manage their income. Some are nervous about using technology; they may struggle to remember their PIN or manage their personal finances. They may be among the 1.8 million people who are still unbanked, relying on a jam-jar approach and monitoring pots of money for bills, which cannot be done with a card.
I was troubled by some of the proposals briefed out ahead of this debate. One suggestion was that in return for requiring businesses to accept cash, certain denominations of coin would be done away with—giving with one hand while taking with the other. That fills me with dread. Another suggestion was requiring “exact-amount services”, which is a euphemism for “rounding up”—something priced at 33p would be priced at 35p, for example. That would make no sense in the midst of a cost of living crisis. There is no mandate for it from the public, and it has no legitimacy in the eyes of consumers or, indeed, retailers.
The Minister is here to tell us what the Government have done, but I will make brief reference to the legislation on access to cash, which is entirely welcome. I would love him to talk about free access to cash, but I bet he will not—he has been disappointing me on that front for some time, so I will not hold my breath. I am also a bit frustrated that the policy statement explaining how we will guarantee access to cash will not come out until we pass the legislation, so we cannot judge how spot on it is, but he may be listening to me on that.
I have not heard many people talk about the notion of cashback without purchase, something for which the Government have legislated. It solved a long-term problem known as the £3.22 issue. Someone may want to take out a precise amount of money—they might not want £10 or £20 because they are managing their finances. They cannot take £3.22 out of an ATM, but they can now take out that amount from their local PayPoint in the newsagent without having to make a purchase. It is life changing for many people in areas such as the one I represent, but all the vested interests in this debate hate talking about cashback without purchase. They do not want people to know about it. They would far rather that the most vulnerable people in my constituency went down to a pay-to-use ATM.
The banks have produced some fascinating research into why people in the most deprived parts of this country often go to a pay-to-use ATM, which may charge £2 or £2.50 to take out small amounts of money, when they are actually very near to a free-to-use ATM. Understanding that strange behaviour is a real challenge for the financial services sector, and it is something that I find frustrating about this entire debate.
I commend the work of the access to cash review and Natalie Ceeney, who has done so much on access in recent years. Like her and the group, I believe that banking hubs are the way forward, but I also know from Link’s work scrutinising the impact of bank closures that the introduction of a banking hub is not the only remedy to bank closures. I think of post offices, ATMs, and deposit-taking “reverse” ATMs. I was doing my own private secretary work, as a sort-of pretend Minister, by checking on my phone what happened in Holt when Barclays closed; I understand that an ATM is now going to be installed. When I checked Axminster, I found that its residents are getting a banking hub—I am not sure when, but congratulations on that. I am sure they have heard how good it was in Cambuslang.
Many campaigners ask, “Is this enough? Are we going far enough and fast enough? Why aren’t they all open now? Why doesn’t a banking hub open the moment the bank shuts its doors?” but 38 banking hubs and 38 more deposit-taking ATMs have been announced so far, which is a pretty good first step. I would love things to move faster—that might stop the Daily Mail campaigning against banking hubs—but they are a rather new concept and certain legalities need sorting out. Indeed, in one case, they are still trying to remove asbestos from the preferred location. People who thought that the moment a branch shut a banking hub would pop up as a like-for-like replacement misunderstood the situation.
Campaigners set the bar so high that I think they will not be satisfied until they have a maternity unit included in the hub, as well as everything else—they almost seem not to want to win this battle that they have been fighting for so long. We need to keep the pressure on those introducing the banking hubs; we need to ensure that the pace of their introduction accelerates and that these initial hurdles are overcome, but I do not think we should talk down the idea of banking hubs because somehow they are not perfect.
I wonder if the aspirations are too high. I listened carefully to the House of Lords debate on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, in the special way that the House of Lords does it. Their lordships suggested in one amendment an obligation on banking hubs to have a representative from every single bank. That just is not feasible. Digital-only banks, such as Monzo and First Direct, offer a better service to customers because they do not have the overheads of a physical network. We would wholly undermine their business model if we were to insist that banks like Monzo suddenly have to recruit someone to physically exist in a banking hub. That makes no sense at all.
What the banking hubs should be used for is digital training and addressing financial exclusion. Someone mentioned decimalisation—I think it was the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. To me, a more pertinent example is the switch from analogue to digital television and the emphasis, training and preparation that went into that process, so that no one was left unserved when analogue was switched off. People knew it was coming and were helped through that process. I am not saying that cash will ever be switched off, nor do I want it to be, but we could learn from that process how we walk and talk people through it.
I want to make two final points. One is around deposit-taking ATMs. This may sound like a rather anodyne and technocratic point—I suppose it is—but not all ATMs are equal. Members may have heard me refer earlier to the challenges retailers face in having to go much further to deposit their takings at the end of the day. A deposit-taking ATM is fundamental to solving that problem.
The post office is not always the solution. My post office in Cleveleys is tiny, despite it being a town of 16,000; people queue out the door even when there are no financial services activities, let alone every time a bank branch closes and they have to start using the post office again. I was speaking to the postmaster of the nearest post office to where I live. I have been hearing worrying tales that local businesses are struggling to deposit cash because the banks are putting limits on the amount a business can deposit in any one calendar year, to the point that some businesses are having to shut down, simply because they cannot deposit the cash takings at the end of the day. I tell the financial services sector and all those banks that normally monitor what I say in this place that I am not happy. I expect an email tomorrow morning from at least one of those banks that are obsessed with everything I say. This policy is a real deterrent.
I end on a note of agreement, though, with the UK Cash Supply Alliance. I know I have been giving them a bit of a hard time in the debate. This is the most technocratic issue imaginable, but it is the cost of the hardwiring of our cash system. The wholesale distribution of cash remains far too costly—£5 billion to the economy overall—and there is far too much duplication. We have not seen the radical reform I believe was needed when the Bank of England set up the wholesale distribution steering group to try to find an alternative model. I fear that some in the cash distribution sector are defending their commercial turf under the guise of protecting customer interests. That is simply not good enough.
I had a fascinating trip to Vaultex near Warrington several years ago. Vaultex is one of the cash-handling and cash-distribution centres that covers the north of England. All our bank notes come in and come out of the centre. I have never stood near so much money in my life. There is absolutely no chance of getting in or out with it—it even has a special roof that a helicopter cannot be landed on just to avoid any shenanigans—but what I saw there was duplication after duplication. Every bank required their bank notes to be counted, stored and separated in a specific way; there was no attempt to rationalise the process. I sat there thinking, “If only more banks could agree to handle their money in the same way, it would start to reduce this £5 billion cost.” I do not know how that is going. I gather there were proposals for a public utility model that would help to bring it all together to reduce the costs, but it is such an opaque process. The Bank of England does not update the minutes on its website for this wholesale distribution steering group, so I know very little about what is going on, which is frustrating.
Reducing that £5 billion cost is the answer to what we have been discussing today, making it cheaper and more affordable for small businesses to keep taking cash. If that does not happen, we will have a problem. The best way to protect the acceptance of cash is not by penalising consumers with higher costs or penalising retailers by forcing them to raise costs, but by addressing the reason why retailers choose not to accept cash in the first place, which is about cost and convenience. We should reduce the cost of wholesale distribution, and make depositing cash easier with more deposit-taking ATMs. If we do that, we will start to tackle the vested interests which have hovered ghoulishly over this debate for far too long.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for his excellent exposition of the challenges that we face. This e-petition debate calling for the legal right to use cash payments in shops and requiring all businesses and public services to accept cash payments is very important. Since I was first elected, repeated concerns have been expressed about the decline of our cash infrastructure and the need to preserve it. I have spoken in every single debate on this matter, along with the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), yet here we are again. It feels like we are banging our heads against a wall as we face, with increasing urgency, the existential crisis facing our cash infrastructure.
The arguments are well rehearsed, and have been again today. There is no denying that, as a result of changes wrought by the covid pandemic, the future of cash is even more uncertain. Many of us in this Chamber and beyond fear that its demise has been accelerated. Ultimately, this is a debate about inclusion—financial inclusion—and consumer choice. The situation becomes ever more urgent with every debate that we have on this issue and with each passing day. I wish to pay tribute to and commend the Scottish Affairs Committee for its report, which is a most informative and constructive contribution to the wider debate.
From the outset, it is important to underline the fact that the right to use cash, as the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys said, cannot be separated from free access to cash. There is no point in legally ensuring the right to use cash if there is no reasonable access to cash. It is important to remember that, in Scotland, this debate takes place in the context of bank closures. This matters, because without access to cash it is simply not possible to use cash. That cannot be said too often. Fifty three per cent of Scotland’s bank branches have closed. In my constituency, the situation is nothing less than appalling. Kilbirnie has no bank. Beith has no bank. Dalry has no bank. West Kilbride has no bank. Kilwinning has no bank. Stevenston has no bank. Ardrossan has no bank. Indeed, in the whole of my constituency only Saltcoats, Largs and Isle of Arran have a bank branch. If we are to protect the cash infrastructure, we need a two-pronged approach: protecting access to cash and protecting the legal right to use cash.
Overall, Scotland has suffered the highest percentage loss of bank branches among all the nations in the UK. It is against that backdrop that any debate about access to cash and the use of cash must take place. Alongside this, we see our post offices under threat, as postmasters struggle to make even the minimum wage. In all the towns in my constituency, the post offices—those towns have no banks—play a vital role in supporting our cash infrastructure, because the banks have washed their hands of the matter. Yet, as an example, the town centre in Kilwinning has now lost its post office. Although Post Office Ltd is working hard to find a sub-postmaster to take on the franchise, it is proving very challenging because it is so hard to turn a profit or even make minimum wage for the franchisee. Of course, it is true to say that the last Labour Government closed down a whole slew of post offices, including many in my constituency, and stripped others of the services that they were able to deliver. All this has been exacerbated by the winding down of the energy support on which post offices currently rely.
Of course, it would help if the banks paid postmasters properly for the work they do on the banks’ behalf as they abandon our towns. Banks must value postmasters, who are picking up the pieces left behind by doing the banks’ work for them and for insufficient remuneration. The situation is simply unacceptable and has placed an unsustainable burden on postmasters, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on that specific matter.
As if all this was not enough, we see a worrying decline in cash machines, especially free-to-use cash machines, in communities across Scotland. This is especially so in rural areas, as we have heard. The Centre for Social Justice recently found that 38% of people on low incomes report having faced cash machine charges, compared with 17% of all consumers. That is what you call a poverty premium: the exploitative practice of placing a disproportionate number of pay-to-use cash machines in our most socioeconomically challenged communities.
Access to cash is vital if we are to demand, as we should and do, that there be a legal right to use cash, and there must be a requirement that all businesses and public services should accept cash. As we have heard, the vast majority of us use cash often and when it is convenient to do so. Indeed, for many rural dwellers, there may be little choice due to digital challenges, which may be exacerbated by the weather, as we have seen in recent weeks, as well as by technical glitches, which can strike without warning at any time. For the most vulnerable customers, there must be the option to access and use cash if that is what they require and is most convenient for them.
The Financial Conduct Authority has found that over 1 million adults in the UK do not have a bank account. There are also many who struggle to manage budgets electronically, and others who simply prefer to manage their daily transactions in cash, such as older people and those on a budget. They would face financial exclusion if our cash infrastructure is allowed to deteriorate further. We know that many consumers were unable to buy what they needed during covid, and that 38% were turned away when trying to buy food from shops using cash. What happens to those who have no alternative to cash payments? Are they to be abandoned? What happened to the customer being king?
Anyone who has ever faced any level of financial difficulty knows that, when this is the case, banks cancel credit cards and advice centres giving debt advice advise clients to cut their cards in half. They do that to help people control their spending and manage their budget better, because we know that using plastic can often lead to losing track and overspending.
Margaret Ferrier
Research has shown that carrying cash can help people with gambling issues to budget, avoid debt and better control their habits. By contrast, it is harder for people to retain control and keep track of their spending while using debit cards. Does the hon. Lady agree that the UK Government must ensure that cash remains a viable payment method to safeguard against the risks of gambling harm?
Patricia Gibson
Yes, and we expect gambling companies to step up and take greater responsibility for the harm that gambling outlets can cause. Of course, we know that there are more ways to gamble on high streets in socioeconomically deprived communities than in better-off communities, which is another scandal that we really should debate another day.
People actually handling cash and seeing in real time what money they are spending is critical to helping them budget—even more so when budgets are under so much pressure and are so much more precarious during this cost of living crisis, when everything costs more each time we go to the supermarket.
There is, of course, another side to this. Electronic payments incur a cost for firms, especially those making many small transactions. The UK Government should seek to address that to help to support our overall cash infrastructure. It is not right that businesses should have to pay those fees. While the provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which grants new powers to the Financial Conduct Authority over the UK’s largest banks and building societies to ensure that cash withdrawal and deposit facilities are available in communities across the country, were welcome, as many people have said in this debate, we need more detail. We need to know how that will work in practice. Again, I am hoping that the Minister will tell us more about that when he responds.
However, it is and has been clear for a long, long time—it was made even clearer as we tried to get back to normal after the pandemic—for a range of reasons that have been well rehearsed today and previously that consumers want and need the choice to pay for goods and services in cash. Consumers must not be forced down a cashless road which they do not want or are simply unable to go down. The Government should uphold that right and protect our cash infrastructure for all the sound reasons debated today. They should enshrine that right in legislation, which is becoming increasingly necessary.
Fundamental to all this is protecting free access to cash in all our communities. Financial inclusion matters, and the Government have a moral duty to uphold that in principle as well as in practice.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for bringing this important and timely debate to the House—I do not think it is necessary to be of a certain age to appreciate how important it is. Last year alone, there was a net loss of 797 banks and financial services shops providing cash and other services, while the latest Bank of England data, from July 2022, found that 35% of people have encountered a shop that does not accept cash. That should concern us all. I have had lots of representation from constituents in Hampstead and Kilburn who have found shops that will not accept cash, which has proven to be a real problem, as we have heard from Members across the House today. According to a recent report from the Royal Society of Arts, 10 million people depend on cash, and the pandemic, which saw an acceleration in the digitisation of payment services, has made it increasingly difficult for many to pay for the goods and services they need.
We know that a massive 3.8 million people in financial difficulty and 15 million people in total use cash for budgeting purposes. The need to protect cash services is only growing in importance, with data collected by the Post Office showing that the use of cash has risen in recent months. As the cost of living crisis deepens, the poorest in society are increasingly turning to cash, as has been reiterated many times in this debate, to manage their budgets on a week-by-week basis, and often day by day.
Of course, Labour welcomes the fact that the Financial Services and Markets Bill, on which the Minister and I both worked, and which is currently in the other place, will finally introduce protections for access to cash. However, we are worried that the Bill has some serious gaps: it fails to even mention cash acceptance, makes no commitment to protect free access to cash—something that Labour is concerned about—and does nothing to protect essential face-to-face banking services, on which the most vulnerable in our society depend for financial advice and support.
According to data collected by the consumer group Which?, there has been a notable decline in the provision of free-to-use ATMs in recent years. In January 2023, there were 12,000 fewer free-to-use ATMs in the UK than in August 2018—a huge decrease of nearly 24%. Does the Minister agree that with the poorest in society increasingly reliant on cash, forcing them to pay for access in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis on record risks further deepening financial exclusion in this country? Will he take action to address the problem? Which? has warned that if the Government do not make clear that their Bill will protect free cash withdrawals and deposits for consumers,
“the entire objective of…the Bill will be undermined.”
Cash acceptance is fundamental to securing the future of cash. There is little point in the most vulnerable having access to cash if they have nowhere to spend it. That is why the Labour party tabled an amendment to the Bill when it was in the Commons, which would have placed a duty on the FCA to collect data on cash acceptance. My colleagues in the House of Lords have been pushing the Government to empower the FCA to monitor and report on levels of cash acceptance across the UK. In his response, the Minister will likely say that we have to wait for the Government’s access to cash policy statement. If so, can he confirm when the statement will be published? Does he also agree that if his Government are committed to protecting the future of cash, there is no reason not to make protections for free access and an FCA remit on cash acceptance explicit in the Bill?
I want to turn briefly to the important and connected issue of protecting face-to-face banking services, which has been mentioned a few times in this debate. Again, analysis by Which? found that over half of the UK’s bank branches have closed since 2015. Additionally, at least 263 branches are expected to close by the end of the year. That will cut off countless people from essential services—I know that from listening to constituents in Hampstead and Kilburn.
Age UK has called for the Financial Services and Markets Bill to be amended to protect the in-person services that older people rely on, such as opening new accounts or applying for a loan, to ensure that banking services can meet their needs. It is not only older people who will struggle without support. Natalie Ceeney does amazing work and has already been mentioned. As chair of UK Finance’s Cash Action Group, she warned in evidence to the Public Bill Committee that there is significant overlap between the people who rely on access to cash—around 10 million UK adults—and those who need face-to-face support. She said,
“every time I meet a community, the debate goes very quickly from cash to banking. It all merges. The reason is we are talking about the same population.”––[Official Report, Financial Markets and Services Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 49, Q98.]
She is completely right. It is the most vulnerable, people from deprived socioeconomic backgrounds and the older parts of society who rely on the extra face-to-face help, such as making or receiving payments or dealing with a standing order. Those are the people who will be left behind if the banking question is left unaddressed.
We also should not forget those without the digital skills needed to bank online, people in rural areas with poor internet connections, and the growing number of people who are simply unable to afford to pay for data or wi-fi as the cost of living crisis deepens. That is why I tabled amendments to the Bill that would give the FCA the powers it needs to protect essential in-person banking services. The Government did not vote for my proposal, but it is not too late for the Government to support the amendments in the Lords.
To be clear, we are not calling for banks to be prevented from closing branches that are no longer needed—far from it. Access to face-to-face services could be delivered through a shared banking hub or other models of community provision. We recognise that it is inevitable that payment and banking systems will continue to innovate. That is a good thing—online banking is a far more convenient way for people to manage their finances—but we have to ensure that the digital revolution that we are talking about does not further deepen financial exclusion in this country, and that will require protecting face-to-face services and putting in place a proper strategy for digital inclusion.
Banking hubs or other models of community provision will have to be part of the solution. Those spaces have the potential to tackle digital exclusion through their dedicated staff who can teach people how to bank online and provide internet access for those without it. However, only four banking hubs have been delivered, out of the underwhelming 38 promised. To ensure that no one is left behind, these services need to be protected in legislation.
If the Government are serious about securing the future of cash, they must listen to all the concerns raised both today and by many of their own Back Benchers during the Financial Services and Markets Bill debate. They must empower the FCA to monitor cash acceptance and protect free access to cash. I hope the Minister will be able to commit to that today, listen to the concerns voiced in this debate, and take heart from the fact that there are so many people in the Gallery who obviously care passionately about this important issue.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell, and it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). I commend the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing this debate. I also commend the many members of the public who signed the e-petitions to rightly raise this important issue here, in the home of democracy, where it falls to us to resolve these matters. I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk has a long-standing issue with cash access and acceptance. We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I will try to address as many of the points raised by colleagues as possible. As the hon. Member said right at the beginning, this is a complex issue.
It falls to me to inject some balance into the debate. Cash has many virtues, and I assure Members that the Government recognise the role played by cash when other technologies fail and the real concerns regarding privacy and the potential, in a cashless society, for states to control freedom of speech. One of the first issues that I dealt with as Minister was the withdrawal of certain account facilities from the Free Speech Union. However, we should also recognise that despite its many virtues, cash is expensive to handle, can be subject to theft and can make businesses—particularly small businesses in the rural areas we have heard a lot from today—feel vulnerable and potentially targeted by criminals. The physicality of cash means that it has a higher carbon footprint, and it can be less convenient when someone is fumbling around and does not quite have the right change.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He makes a fair point about vulnerability, with people feeling perhaps a bit unsafe with cash, but does he not agree that part of the reason why businesses are now feeling a bit more vulnerable with cash is because of the bank closures that have been allowed to go ahead? Now, they have to travel greater distances to deposit cash. Is the Minister willing to come up with a solution for businesses so that they can continue to have cash and use it safely?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member makes a good point. He talked a lot about his rural constituency, which is a little larger than mine but also very rural, and brought that to life by talking about the Grantown-on-Spey annual show. He is quite right, but if he will bear with me, I will talk about the solution to precisely the problem he raises. This is not just an issue of access to cash, or the use of cash, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said, about how we can ensure that businesses and retailers have access to facilities to deposit cash. I will come on to discuss the legislative action that I assure the House we are taking on precisely that point.
I have followed this debate extremely closely so, to be clear, let me say for the Government that there is no plan, no drive and no conspiracy to eliminate cash. This Government continue to support the ability of citizens to use cash as an alternative to digital payments, and I am proud that the Government are taking legislative steps to support the use of cash well into the foreseeable future. It is this Government, for the first time, who are taking those legislative steps.
A number of Members have talked about the fact that the way people make payments is changing. We have seen that over time. Analogies have been drawn with the transition from analogue to digital television and with decimalisation—I do not remember that, but the Father of the House was not shy about his recall of going through that transition. Digital payments play an important role in people’s lives. We see that from our own experience in the Tea Room of this House and also from the data. The industry body UK Finance found that in 2021 non-cash transactions accounted for 85% of UK payments, up from 45% a decade earlier and 60% in 2016. That is a really fast rate of change. I do not say that to unsettle anybody in respect of the continued attachment to cash, but it does mean that we in this place have to contemplate very rapid changes in society and technology.
Cash remains important for millions of people across the UK. We are an ageing society, and many Members have talked about the vulnerable groups—my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) thought it was about 10 million people—who make up a significant part of society. We should rightly have great recourse to work out how we can protect them, whether that is through support with the convenience of managing their finances or with other vulnerabilities. Members made some great points about the importance of managing finances through the use of cash.
This is about striking a balance in society, which we have sought to do through the Financial Services and Markets Bill. I want to offer reassurance and protection for those who seek it. I am conscious that not everyone will be as familiar with the clause-by-clause detail of the Bill as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and I am. That Bill, which has made its passage through the House, will mean that for the first time, not just since the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) scrabbled for coins himself but since ancient Celts first manufactured coins on this great isle of ours, there will be statutory protection of access to cash and the ability to deposit cash. It is important that we get that Bill on the statute book in this time of rapid change. It will cover access to deposit facilities on a similar basis as access to cash withdrawal.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk reminded us that this is the domain not just of the banks and ATMs, but also the extensive post office network. I know that postmasters—notwithstanding the loss to the profession of my hon. Friend—do a fantastic job in our rural communities. We should support them, and we do want to see that support. The provision of cash and banking services can be one way in which we underwrite their continued service to the community.
Patricia Gibson
Will the Minister explain what my constituents in Kilwinning will do when the town centre has lost its bank? It will be a population of 16,000 with no bank and no post office. What advice would he give to the businesses and residents of Kilwinning?
Andrew Griffith
I advise the hon. Lady to explore with Link the provision of potential alternative cash machines and to explore with the Access to Cash Action Group the potential for a banking hub. A number of Members have procured banking hubs for their constituencies. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has a banking hub and has spoken up about that issue.
Richard Foord
On banking hubs, the Axminster chamber of commerce has been trying to get through to the Access to Cash Action Group to find out when it will get its community banking hub, but has been unable to get through, so will the Minister comment a little further on Access to Cash Action Group communications?
Andrew Griffith
I will happily entertain treatises from the hon. Gentleman if he would like me to follow that up. There are 70 cash hubs on their way. Members throughout the House, including a number of his colleagues in Devon, have procured them. It sometimes takes a little while for them to appear because of planning issues or the need to get the right power arrangements and safe access in place for constituents. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with the banking hubs and work with them, he will find that there are solutions out there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys talked about the no-purchase cashback facility, which turns every single convenience store and retailer in the country into a potential cash-dispensing hub.
Andrew Griffith
I will give way one final time before the hon. Lady combusts.
Patricia Gibson
I gently say to the Minister that local corner shops do not want to be cash dispensers. There are all sorts of security issues relating to no-purchase cashback.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady makes an important point, although perhaps not the one she intended, about some of the challenges of cash in a rural location.
Andrew Griffith
I will because my hon. Friend made some strong points earlier.
Paul Maynard
Does the Minister think it is important to recognise that cashback without purchase is a voluntary decision by the retailer? Retailers are not obliged to embark upon it if they do not wish to; it is a commercial enterprise.
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the principles in how we have approached the issue. Although we are taking powers in the Financial Services and Markets Bill to mandate access to cash and cash machines, we must remember that 95% of the population are within 2 km of a free cash machine.
Andrew Griffith
I will make some progress, because I have been relatively generous in taking interventions.
Cash acceptance is an emerging issue that we contemplate for the future, but it is not a prevalent issue today, other than when people conflate it with the loss of bank branches. That is understandable, but we are seeing very rapid changes in society. I am clear that it is not the Government’s position—I think this is also true of the Labour party and, probably, the Scottish Executive—that we will mandate cash acceptance on retailers or public services. If anyone has done battle with a local authority parking machine, or the Mayor of London’s cashless transport system, they will know that it is often public services that do not take cash, while 98% of retailers are happy to continue to take cash indefinitely, particularly if the facilities can be made available. Public services are often the first to migrate to a cashless economy.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way one final time. I would love him to come to the highlands and take a 2 km walk around parts of my constituency and point out where the cash machines are. We always try to find things to agree on in Westminster Hall, so I agree with the Minister’s earlier comment that his Government have “no plan and no drive”. If the 70 hubs are to be spread across the UK, will the Minister tell us when my constituents in villages and towns will see hubs arrive near them?
Andrew Griffith
It would not be for me to promise any Member a hub; it is for them to make the case. I observe that many other Members have been able to make that case successfully, and the hon. Gentleman has proven very persuasive today, so I wish him well in procuring a hub for his constituency. I will now make some progress, in the interests of time.
It is important to have the flexibility to respond to changes in the market. What we are doing in the Financial Services and Markets Bill should not be underestimated. As I said, for the first time in law we are protecting the ability of people and businesses—businesses are in scope as well—to deposit as well as accept banknotes and coins. The Government’s position is that it is much better that we will the means to enable businesses to continue to take cash, rather than simply will the ends without addressing any of the means, as some would do.
Apart from the Bill, the Government work with the financial services regulators to monitor and access trends related to cash. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn asked if the work to track the accessibility of cash will be done; it will. As part of that, the Financial Conduct Authority has surveyed retailers and found that even of small businesses—this is not an issue for big businesses, by and large—98% would never turn away a customer if they needed to pay by cash. I extend an invitation to any Member to share with me, the Treasury and the FCA any specific examples of retailers declining cash. I am conscious of a number of examples in the public sector—local authority car parks, and even municipal transport run by executive bodies—but I am not aware of a high level of prevalence among retailers.
We must also recognise that technology is providing solutions. Big Issue salespeople are now equipped with tap readers, and report 30% higher donations being given when people tap rather than use cash. That was my experience when I joined the Royal British Legion to collect for poppy sales. There are a number of other examples of how technology can try to solve the gap, notwithstanding the fact that we will continue to ensure that we protect access to cash. We have talked about the good work of the cash access group and of Link, and it should be incumbent on any Government to continue to ensure that we put those important solutions in place.
Once we have passed the Financial Services and Markets Bill, we will provide the policy statement about the importance of access to cash, the prevalence of that across the UK and what thresholds will be appropriate for Government to take different decisions or possibly to look at mandating things. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys talked about wholesale cash distribution, and the back end is important if we are to continue to ensure that businesses have the access to cash that they need. It is important that the wholesale cash infrastructure in the UK works and, in the Bill, again for the first time, we will take powers to regulate that, mindful that over time we expect to see the volume of cash decrease.
I have set out what the Government will do: the important step of taking powers in legislation that will soon be on the statute book, giving the FCA the ability for the first time to regulate access to cash. I have given our commitment to continue to monitor the situation, accepting that we all have constituents we are concerned about and that we are seeing fast-moving changes in society. I also give Members the reassurance that the Government’s desire or policy is not to eliminate cash. We have no such objective, but quite the opposite: the Government recognise the importance of the utility of cash in the system and will do whatever we can to ensure, practically, that our constituents continue to have the ability to use cash, as has always been their historical right.
Martyn Day
On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I extend my thanks to all Members who came along today to make speeches or interventions. We have had a reasonable and well-informed debate, which has very much summed up the changing nature of the relationship with cash in our society. This issue goes to the heart of choice, financial inclusion, budgeting and privacy, all of which show how vital the access to and use of cash are for many of our constituents, in particular the most vulnerable. I remain of the view that it would be perfectly reasonable to have a legal requirement for a minimum level of acceptance of cash by retailers for in-person transactions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 605030 and 622284, relating to the acceptance of cash.
Written Statements
UK-Ukraine Digital Trade Agreement
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
Today the UK has signed a digital trade agreement (DTA) with Ukraine to support Ukraine’s economy and post-conflict reconstruction and cement the UK’s position as a global leader in digital trade.
Ukraine’s recovery from Putin’s illegal and barbaric war will be a symbol of the power of freedom and democracy over autocracy. The UK-Ukraine comprehensive digital trade agreement is one way in which this Government are doing everything in our power to support Ukraine’s brave fight. Trading digitally is particularly important in the current conflict, where damage to Ukrainian infrastructure makes it harder to trade physically. Digital tools and technologies can ensure that Ukraine can continue to access vital goods and services.
Ukraine identified greater digitalisation of the economy as one of its main areas of focus for recovery and modernisation. This is why we have worked tirelessly together to deliver a modern digital treaty that is the deepest and most comprehensive ever negotiated. Following signature, it will be laid before Parliament and published online. The agreement should come into force later this year once both the UK and Ukraine have completed our respective domestic procedures.
This agreement will enhance UK-Ukraine co-operation on cyber-security, make it easier to provide digitally delivered goods and services, guarantee the free flow of financial and other trusted data, and enhance collaboration on emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. The UK’s services exports to Ukraine are increasingly digitised, with UK exports of digitally delivered services amounting to £132 million in 2020—73% of all UK services exports to Ukraine. This DTA will enable UK and Ukrainian businesses to trade in each other’s markets more easily, and help Ukrainian businesses grow and recover from the impact of this cruel war.
The dream of a new Ukraine is not only one of freedom and democracy, but also one of prosperity driven by a modern digital economy, and the UK is proud to play its role in making this dream a reality.
[HCWS647]
Emergency Alerts System
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State (Oliver Dowden)
Today, I can confirm that the Government have launched phase one of the emergency alerts system, a UK-wide capability based on cell broadcasting technology developed by the Cabinet Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in conjunction with mobile network operators.
The system launch commenced on Sunday 19 March and will allow emergency responders to send emergency alerts, with a distinctive message appearance and tone, to every compatible mobile device within a selected geographical area at very short notice, providing a highly flexible capability for prompting quick action from the public. In order to test the technology, the pilot will focus only on notifying the public of the most serious severe weather and flooding risks over the first three months, followed by a review process.
This system will transform the United Kingdom’s emergency warning and informing capability, providing a means to provide urgent information to nearly 90% of mobile phones within a defined area. This area can be as limited as an electoral ward, or expanded as far as the whole of the United Kingdom. The technology has been used successfully in a number of other countries, such as the United States, Canada and Japan, where it has been proven to save lives. Ahead of the launch, the Government have worked in partnership with the devolved Administrations and local resilience forums to ensure that relevant emergency responders across the United Kingdom have an understanding of the capability.
There will be a very high threshold for its use based on strict criteria centred on an immediate risk to life. Despite this, members of the public will be able to opt out of the system if they do not wish to receive emergency alerts. The system is secure, with alerts only able to be sent by authorised governmental and emergency services users.
We have worked closely with our devolved partners to ensure the capability is available throughout the UK and this close collaboration will continue throughout the pilot phase. The UK Government will issue alerts for incidents in England, or that relate to reserved matters. Alerts to be released in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will be communicated in advance to resilience officials in the relevant devolved Government. On matters that are devolved, Ministers from the relevant Administrations may approve the alert.
A communications campaign will lead up to a UK-wide national message on 23 April. This will seek to maximise public awareness and familiarise people with the format and style of the message. Our research shows that other countries have found such test messages to be highly effective in improving public understanding. This alert will be simultaneously broadcast to all compatible devices and will be sent in both English and Welsh to recipients in Wales.
This important development will allow us to validate the effectiveness of the system and build familiarity and trust, laying the foundations for the potential wider use of emergency alerts in the future.
[HCWS654]
Ajax Payments
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
I wish to provide a further update on the Ajax equipment project being delivered as part of the armoured cavalry programme.
The Ajax Platform
Ajax is part of our £41 billion investment in British Army equipment and support over the next decade, delivering critical modernisation to address the threats of today and the future. The Ajax programme will deliver 589 vehicles to the British Army made up of six variants, allowing the Army to operate in all weathers, 24 hours a day.
The range and capabilities of the sensors on the platform and the on-board software will deliver a step-change in the surveillance capability of the Army. Ajax will provide a world leading competitive advantage, from its suite of cutting-edge sensors, modular armour packs and its 40mm stabilised cannon.
Recovering the programme
The Ministry of Defence has openly acknowledged the problems previously faced by the Ajax programme. Alongside General Dynamics, the Ministry of Defence has successfully completed user validation trials to validate the design modifications that have addressed the noise and vibration concerns, allowing the commencement of programmed reliability growth trials on 31 January.
Reliability growth trials are a standard part of the acquisition process for military equipment of this nature. These trials stress test the durability of the vehicle’s platform and components through a series of battlefield missions that represent years of activity on the platform. Since starting, the AJAX, APOLLO, ATLAS and ARES variants have driven over 2,260 kilometres through different terrains, completing a variety of representative battlefield tasks such as operating across a range of speeds and terrains, firing weapon systems, using the vehicles’ systems and communications, and completing specialist tasks such as vehicle recoveries and repairs using the integrated crane. Reliability growth trials are progressing well. No fundamental design issues have arisen to date. These trials are part of a broader trials programme aimed at validating that contracted vehicle requirements are met.
The MOD has developed with General Dynamics a revised schedule for the delivery of vehicles that is, subject to contract amendment, robust, realistic and achievable. Revised key delivery milestones set a meaningful initial operating capability of a trained and deployable squadron. This is scheduled to be achieved between July and December 2025. Full operating capability will be met when the Army has trained and converted forces to the Ajax platform to deliver armoured cavalry capability to the deep reconnaissance strike brigade and its two armoured brigade combat teams. This is scheduled to be achieved between October 2028 and September 2029.
The ability to deliver against this new schedule has been extensively scrutinised and assured within the Department and externally. A recent review by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority concluded that the programme’s successful delivery is feasible, re-grading the Ajax programme from red to amber.
Resuming Contract Payments
The Ministry of Defence remains clear it will only accept vehicles that comply with General Dynamics’ contractual obligations. The Department has withheld payments for work completed and had not made a payment since December 2020. Given the satisfactory progress against the programme, the Department will resume payments this month, starting with a payment of £480 million. This is approximately half of what has been held back since December 2020. Restarting payments to General Dynamics reflects the fact that the programme continues to return to a firm footing and supports the delivery of the schedule to deliver operational capability. The payment will cascade to the UK-wide supply chain of more than 230 companies, reinforcing confidence that the programme is progressing and providing for more than 4,000 jobs, including hundreds in south Wales.
Future payments will be made against the new schedule and its milestones, conditional on the delivery of compliant and deployable Ajax vehicles and the continued progress of remaining trials activity. We have a robust firm price contract for the delivery of 589 vehicles, which will ensure that General Dynamics is incentivised to deliver against agreed outcomes. As such, the whole programme remains within its originally approved budget.
Learning Lessons
The Ajax programme is turning a corner, but this does not remove the need for the Department to identify and learn lessons. We have always been clear that we will not shy away from taking action to change the culture and processes across defence as necessary. We look forward to receiving the finalised report from Clive Sheldon KC on the Ajax Lessons Learned Review and publishing it as soon as practicable.
[HCWS652]
Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council: Second Meeting
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
The next meeting of the Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council will take place in London on 24 March 2023, with delegations attending in person and by video conference.
The meeting will be co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and vice-president of the European Commission Maroš Šefčovič.
The agenda will include:
1. Opening remarks by the co-chairs and adoption of the agenda
2. Energy
1. Electricity trading (Article 312 TCA)
2. Security of supply co-operation and working arrangements for TSOs (Articles 315 and 317 TCA)
3. EU green deal industrial plan
3. Regulation
1. MoU on financial services
2. Working groups (Article 9 TCA)
3. Intellectual property
4. UK Retained EU Law Bill
5. Bill of Rights Bill
4. Security
1. Co-operation on cybersecurity (Article 703 TCA)
2. Co-operation on counterterrorism (Article 768 TCA)
3. Passenger name records (Article 552(4) TCA)
5. Union programmes
6. AOB
7. Concluding remarks by the co-chairs
[HCWS650]
Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee: Tenth Meeting
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
The next meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee will take place in London on 24 March 2023, with delegations attending in person and by video conference.
The meeting will be co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and vice-president of the European Commission Maroš Šefčovič.
The agenda will include:
1. Welcome and opening remarks from the co-chairs
1.1. Formal adoption of the agenda
1.2. Stocktake of specialised committee activity 21 February 2022-24 March 2023.
2. Update on withdrawal agreement implementation in accordance with Article 164 of the withdrawal agreement
2.1. Citizens’ rights
2.2. The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland / the Windsor framework
3. Decisions and recommendations for Joint Committee adoption
3.1. Decision No X/2023 laying down arrangements relating to the Windsor framework
3.2. Recommendation No X/2023 on market surveillance and enforcement
3.3. Recommendation No X/2023 on Article 13(3a) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Joint Declaration to be made by the Union and the United Kingdom
3.4. Joint declaration No XX/2023
3.5. Joint declaration on the application of Article 10(1) of the Windsor framework
3.6. Joint declaration on Article 13(3a) of the Windsor framework
3.7. Joint declaration number X
3.8. Joint declaration on the VAT regime for goods not being at risk for the Union’s internal market and on the VAT arrangements for cross-border refunds
United Kingdom unilateral declarations and Union unilateral declarations taking note
3.9. Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom involvement of the institutions of the 1998 agreement (Annex 1 to the Decision No X/2023 laying down arrangements relating to the Windsor framework)
3.10. Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on market surveillance and enforcement 3.10.1 Unilateral declaration by the Union taking note of the unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on market surveillance and enforcement
3.11. Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on export procedures for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom
3.11.1. Unilateral declaration by the Union taking note of the unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on export procedures for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom
3.12. Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on the democratic consent mechanism in Article 18 of the Windsor framework
3.12.1. Unilateral declaration by the Union taking note of the unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on the democratic consent mechanism in Article 18 of the Windsor framework
3.13. Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on strengthening enforcement action for goods moved in parcels from another part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland
3.13.1. Unilateral declaration by the Union taking note of the unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on strengthening enforcement action for goods moved in parcels from another part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland
4. AOB
5. Concluding remarks
[HCWS651]
Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group: Fifth Annual Report
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
Today I am pleased to announce the publication of the fifth annual report of the Biometrics and Forensic Ethics Group. The group provides Ministers with independent advice on matters relating to ethical issues in forensic science and biometrics and considers issues in data ethics.
I would like to thank the group for their valuable advice concerning the use and retention of human biometric identifiers, and regarding the use and implementation of projects involving both large and complex datasets.
The Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group have continued to show commitment to advising the Home Office biometrics programme on matters regarding changes to biometric regulations and biometric enrolment.
I am grateful to the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group for maintaining strong relationships with internal Home Office teams in order to establish a strong presence and to identify a range of projects, within their remit, which can benefit from expert ethical guidance.
The Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group annual report can be viewed on the website of the Group at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/biometrics-and-forensics-ethics-group and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS649]
English Freeports
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
Today I have the pleasure of announcing that the Thames freeport has received final Government approval, in a massive boost to south Essex and the wider region. This is a pivotal landmark for the programme and it comes less than four months after I announced the first group to receive approval. The speed of progress sends a clear message: the Government are backing these areas to grow and thrive.
Freeports form an important part of this Government’s economic strategy and will catalyse investment through a combination of tax reliefs, public funding, and Government support. These measures will drive growth, create jobs and, in turn, transform opportunities for local communities—a real example of levelling up in action.
The Thames freeport will now receive up to £25 million in seed funding and potentially hundreds of millions in locally retained business rates to upgrade local infrastructure and stimulate regeneration. This is alongside generous tax reliefs and a simplified customs procedure, all backed by a package of trade and innovation support for businesses located there.
Armed with these tools, the Thames freeport will drive investment in and around the ports of south Essex and Ford’s world-class Dagenham engine plant. This will bring jobs of the future—in sectors such as advanced manufacturing and hydrogen—to local communities.
And this is only the beginning. Across Government, we are working closely with the English freeports to support them to achieve their objectives and deliver transformational benefits for their local areas.
We also recently announced two successful green freeports in Scotland and we will be announcing the outcome of the Welsh competition shortly. Discussions continue with our stakeholders in Northern Ireland about how we can extend the benefits associated with the freeport programme there.
This is an incredibly exciting time for UK freeports and the wider levelling-up agenda as we start to see local areas bring their plans to life with big private investments, upgrades to local infrastructure, and bold regeneration initiatives in those areas that need a boost, creating real impacts for local people.
[HCWS653]
Investigatory Powers Commissioner: 2021 Annual Report
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
I have today laid before the House of Commons a copy of the annual report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, Rt Hon Sir Brian Leveson. The report covers the activities of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO), the Office for Communications Data Authorisations (OCDA) and the Technology Advisory Panel (TAP) for 2021. I will also be sending a copy of this report to Scottish Ministers as required under section 234(8) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA).
This report demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to ensuring a high level of compliance with the regulations governing the use of investigatory powers. Sir Brian Leveson oversees the use of investigatory powers by over 600 public authorities, including the intelligence and security services and law enforcement agencies. He notes that he is continually impressed with the dedication and professionalism of the officials working within those bodies and that regulatory compliance continues to be treated as a high priority.
The annual report contains a reference to an error identified in the Home Office’s arrangements for warrants authorised out of hours. IPCO were notified of this error immediately upon its discovery in November 2021 and the Home Office immediately put in place arrangements, which the Investigatory Powers Commissioner was content with, to rectify the problem.
As required under section 234(6)(b) of the IPA, I wish to notify the House that there is material considered too sensitive for the open report on which I have been briefed separately. I am satisfied that, following consultation with relevant Government Departments and agencies, the contents of this report are not prejudicial to national security or ongoing investigations.
I would like to place on record my thanks to the current and previous Commissioners and their staff for their work. In particular, I am pleased that Sir Brian Leveson agreed to another three-year term from 21 October 2022. I also note the appointment of Dame Muffy Calder as the new Chair of IPCO’s Technology Advisory Panel and welcome the expertise she and her colleagues will provide on emerging technology.
Maintaining public trust and confidence in the exercise of the investigatory powers vital for national security and public safety is a top priority for the Government. This report demonstrates the high quality of the oversight of our intelligence and security agencies’ use of the most intrusive powers. I am satisfied that our oversight arrangements are amongst the strongest and most effective in the world.
I commend this report to the House.
[HCWS646]
Help to Claim
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
I am today announcing that the current Help to Claim support arrangements have been extended to 31 March 2024. Help to Claim provides tailored practical support to individuals to make their universal credit claim online.
Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland will continue to deliver independent support following a further £22.2 million investment. The provision will continue to cover England, Scotland and Wales for 12 months, and ensures that free confidential and impartial support is available to help people make a new universal credit claim and manage their claim, up to receiving their first correct payment.
Since April 2019, Help to Claim has supported over 800,000 people, with nine in 10 people rating their overall experience as good or very good and saying they would recommend it to friends and family.
From April 2023, the support will continue to be provided through telephony and digital channels. For those individuals who are unable to access support via these channels, they will continue to be able to go to their local jobcentre, where staff will identify the right support to meet their needs. This is already available to those individuals who choose to seek support from the Department directly in making a claim to universal credit.
The Department is committed to providing the best possible support for all our claimants, including the most vulnerable in society, in both making and maintaining their claim.
The Department is currently considering the support required from April 2024.
[HCWS648]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as is customary before opening the Grand Committee, I must advise your Lordships that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham
That the Grand Committee do consider the Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2023
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I am grateful to be here today to debate these important regulations. Before I turn to the detail of the statutory instrument before us today, I would be grateful for the opportunity to highlight the vital role that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—the MHRA—plays in safeguarding our public health. The MHRA’s work to regulate medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion ensures that the healthcare products used across the UK are safe and effective. It charges fees to recover the costs of providing a direct service for regulatory work; these fees are set in statute and, as such, legislative change is required to amend them.
We have seen throughout the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond the innovative and agile regulator that the MHRA can be. It must therefore have a sustainable financial footing; this is particularly vital as it strives to achieve its vision of being a world class regulator, embracing the opportunities of EU exit and keeping patient safety and access to healthcare products at the heart of regulation without adding additional burden on to the taxpayer or the Exchequer.
This instrument updates the fees that the MHRA charges in relation to its activities regulating medical devices and blood components for transfusion. Its fees have been updated several times in the past to ensure that they remain appropriate, as is standard practice for government bodies that charge fees. However, to provide certainty and stability to the sector throughout the EU exit transition period and the Covid-19 pandemic, the MHRA has not updated its fees since the financial year 2017-18 for medical devices and financial year 2010-11 for blood components for transfusion.
Additionally, a recent change in the legal status of the agency has made the need for full cost recovery more acute. The MHRA previously operated as a government trading fund, which gave it the ability to retain and rely on cash reserves to better manage areas of under-recovery, notwithstanding the fact that fees should fully cover costs. However, since April 2022, following the review by the Office for National Statistics, the MHRA was reclassified from a trading fund to a market regulatory agency. As a result, the MHRA is no longer able to retain cash reserves.
Full cost recovery for the MHRA’s services has become essential to ensure the future financial sustainability of the agency. The SI therefore introduces amendments which fall into three categories. First, there is a 10% indexation increase on all fees. The indexation is linked to staff costs, which have risen in line with the wider Civil Service pay award by 10% since the last substantial MHRA fee increases in 2016. Staff costs account for over half of the MHRA’s total expenditure and therefore have a substantial impact on cost of fees charged. Secondly, there is a further uplift for a specific number of activities that were identified as significantly under-recovering via their fees to ensure cost recovery. Thirdly, there is the introduction of some new fees for services that require cost recovery since the last fee changes in 2018 for medical devices. The SI also introduces two new optional services related to clinical investigation of medical devices which industry may wish to use. These new services relate to obtaining expert regulatory advice or statistical reviews from the MHRA in relation to clinical investigation of a medical device.
The MHRA is obliged to recover the costs of its regulatory activities in accordance with the Treasury’s managing public money guidelines. The amendments that this SI will introduce to the fees for the MHRA’s regulatory work on medical devices and blood components are necessary to ensure that the MHRA recovers its costs associated with delivering these services. It is appropriate that the regulated bear the cost of regulation and that the MHRA does not profit from fees at the expense of industry.
The full cost-recovery approach ensures that the MHRA does not make a loss which would fall on UK taxpayers and patients to subsidise. The MHRA is committed to regularly reviewing its fees and ensuring that these remain fair and reasonable and continue to reflect the true cost of providing regulatory services. The MHRA is also committed to delivering a reliable service and publishes performance targets that are reported against in its annual report and accounts, which are laid before Parliament.
The fees updates are important to ensure that the MHRA has the resources it needs to deliver reliable services. The fees updates will, in turn, contribute to operating modernised systems and processes, recruitment and retention of skilled staff and keeping pace with technological advancements.
To summarise, with this instrument, we have the opportunity to ensure that the MHRA has the financial security it needs to support the delivery of a responsive and efficient regulatory service for the protection of patients and improvement of public health across the UK.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his concern and his introduction on the very important matter of blood. Much detail is given by the department in the papers that we have, particularly in the Explanatory Memorandum. Clearly, a lot of work has gone into producing what we have before us.
Currently, a lengthy inquiry by a learned judge and his board is drawing to a close. It regards how, a generation ago, contaminated blood was given to unsuspecting patients, resulting in great distress—and worse—for not only the patients affected but their families. I think the learned chair will report soon; the Minister might confirm that.
My basic question is: can the Minister say what sort of people are involved in the receipt of these fees? One presumes that they are medical professionals or ancillaries who perhaps deal with the details of making available what is required. Can he give examples of the status, titles and work of those who receive the fees? He might agree that, on the face of it, the fee rise is steep.
Clearly, time has gone by, so I intend my interjection to be very brief, but I think I have raised a pertinent question. I rise in this Committee fairly often because I believe that many important regulations come to us, but debates are thinly attended. In many cases, what we consider in our debates here would be better taken on the Floor of your Lordships’ House. That is an opinion, but what we are debating now is very important, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, we echo the Minister’s comments in praise of the agency for the valuable work that it does in the United Kingdom. Of course, we also want to make sure that it is effectively funded for that work, but we have a few questions on the instrument before us.
First, if we look through the Explanatory Memorandum, the Minister has already explained the item referred to in Paragraph 7.6, that
“the Office for National Statistics reclassified the MHRA from a Trading Fund to a Market Regulatory Agency”,
and said that this affected the way in which it can use cash reserves. In exchanges with the Minister prior to the Committee we talked about the fact that we do nerdy regulation in here. I am curious to know whether any more detail might be made available in writing or otherwise about the way in which that classification or reclassification can take place and the effect that it has, as clearly it may be relevant to other agencies in this space. Understanding what it means to move from being a trading fund to a market regulatory agency is quite important for our work more generally.
Specifically on the cost increases, paragraph 10.2 tells us that there was “a general acceptance” of the need for increased fees in the responses, noting that people said that there was an understanding of the need for an increase in the fees but that they expected to see corresponding consistency in the service that they were given. Again, I hope that the Minister can come back to that later and talk about the assurances that the industry is looking for with regard to the service. However, if we look in detail at the consultation responses, we see that they were not uniformly positive. If we look at the category 1 increases, which was the simple 10% indexation, it was 61% for and 39% against. However, if we look at category 2, where there are some cost-based increases—they are significant and we will touch on those—it was 56% against to 44% for, so clearly, people were more uncomfortable with that. When we come to the third category of new fees, opinion was just in favour but was more balanced: 55% for and 45% against. Importantly, the consultees were then asked whether they thought there would be some impact of the new fees structure on particular kinds of businesses, and 89% said yes and only 11% said no, so a significant number of the consultees felt that in particular small and medium-sized enterprises might be disproportionately affected. We should not gloss over that. I know that officials are trying to summarise things when they produce an Explanatory Memorandum but if you summarise, sometimes you lose these important nuances where there was a much more mixed picture in the response to the proposals.
Paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum tells us that the anticipated costs that will fall on businesses, charities and voluntary bodies will be £1.9 million per year, which is echoed in paragraph 25 of the impact assessment, where it says that these costs will fall on businesses. Of course, the direct costs do, but those businesses will in turn have to pass those costs on to someone, and in most cases the eventual purchasers will be NHS bodies. Therefore again, at one level, it will fall on the business; I do not think that the businesses will simply absorb that cost, and there will be an impact on the taxpayer which does not necessarily come out. I hope that the Government will look at that and at whether, perhaps by increasing the regulatory costs, perhaps for good reasons, we end up increasing the cost base of the equipment. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and I were just in the Chamber talking to a Question about the cost pressures on medical equipment and devices and the need to replace significant amounts of outdated equipment with more modern equipment. In many cases, that more modern equipment will go through this approvals process, which will add on cost, so we need to be mindful of that cost base impact.
That brings me to my last point, which was about the impact of the new costs—again, we should not lose sight of them. We get the detailed figures in the annex to the instrument, which is extremely helpful. However, certainly for medical devices, if we look at the status quo ante and the status quo post the adoption of the regulations—these are my rough calculations and I am sure that the people who advise the Minister will be able to do it in more detail—there are costs potentially of £40,000 or of that order under the current regime for somebody to get a new medical device through the designation process, the audit process, and so on. In many cases, those costs are increasing three or fourfold, so you are talking about somebody potentially having to find £150,000 and numbers north of that now to get a medical device through the process.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the SI and the important provisions within it. As my noble friend Lord Jones said, it is an important SI, and we acknowledge the role that the MHRA plays and the need to increase the fees that it charges for regulating medicines and related products.
I appreciate that the Minister said that the MHRA has not increased its fees to this extent since 2016-17, which was in an effort to provide the industry with certainty and stability through the EU exit period and the challenges of the pandemic.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked some questions the responses to which I would also be interested to hear. The consultation process was important, and I am glad that it took place and has guided the SI and its provisions, because the views of relevant stakeholders are key in making sure that we get things in the right place.
There is a clear acknowledgement from noble Lords that the MHRA needs to be financially stable, because it needs to be able to deliver regulatory services that protect and improve patient safety with high-quality, safe, effective and innovative medical products. I certainly welcome the greater clarity that the SI provides on the increased costs of providing quality care in our health services. However, I have a question for the Minister specifically on the SI. Where the increased costs of the fee simply cannot be absorbed by the NHS, which is already facing the worst of crises, could the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that the increase will be accommodated without affecting the stability of NHS finances and without impacting patient care? In other words, how will it be done?
I will make some more general points about the work of the MHRA. Innovative companies in this field often say that a key block to their progress—a key block to getting their work through the MHRA—is the speed, or the lack of speed, with which it can be processed. Can the Minister indicate how he will ensure that the MHRA stays up to speed with the latest advances and is able to process them as quickly as possible?
It would also be helpful to know how the department scrutinises and assesses the work of the MHRA. For example, what is the formal matrix for success and the speed at which it processes new devices? How well does the MHRA communicate with other organisations in the sector? What engagement does the department have with the MHRA, both to hold it to account and to improve its practices?
In drawing my more general points to a close, I note and welcome the recent announcement of the extra £10 million of funding for the MHRA. Can the Minister outline the blocks to quick approval to which this money will be targeted? How will the impact of this additional money be measured, and is it sufficient to deliver the service we need to ensure that UK patients have faster access to the most cutting-edge medical products in the world? As part of the additional money, the Chancellor announced last week that treatments already approved by “trusted” regulators internationally would be nearly automatically approved. Which countries are counted as “trusted”? Has an impact assessment been carried out for this change and, if so, can it be published?
We are always looking forward and looking to make further strides in patient safety, it is certainly my opinion that this statutory instrument takes us further along this route, and we welcome it.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and, as ever, will try to reply and follow up in writing where necessary. I shall try to take them in order, for ease. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked who is working on the bloods, for want of a better word. We have qualified professionals who are working to WHO standards, such as phlebotomists. Related to this was the question of who is in receipt of these fees. It is twofold. Obviously, a lot of fees go to fund MHRA itself, but a lot of the cost base is when it is hiring in subject-matter experts. In that case, they get the fees.
The general point raised by all noble Lords was the basis of this. As I said, it is a cost-recovery model. There are swings and roundabouts there, but it has tried to ensure that where there are bigger increases, it is only because that is the legitimate cost, but on average it comes to about 12% to 13%. I think that we would all accept that, for something that has not increased since 2016-17, that is reasonable. It is quite a bit behind inflation. That notwithstanding, I am very alive to the impact on SMEs, having been, as I said, in a similar space myself in the past. There are easements and waivers that can be applied, if that is the case.
To the general point about how we are trying to keep up with the speed of advances in the industry, it is very much the understanding that the industry is providing a service. Of course, safety must always be paramount, but it is a service to bring in innovation and attract new people into the sector. It has a transformation programme to ensure speedy replies—but I was pleased to hear that it is also looking to introduce a consulting service to help companies get into the field. That will be different from the regulatory side—obviously, we need a Chinese wall between the two. But it is recognised, especially for a small company, which does not have a regulatory team in place, that being guided and hand-held through the process, and having someone to tell them that this is what they need to do to get in, is very important. That is something that it is committed to doing.
As for holding the MHRA to account, to be candid, I see that very much as my job. That is obviously for officials as well, but I have the brief for the ALBs, and I set up regular meetings with them. As I said, I am very much alive to the fact that that is needed to make sure that it really is serving the industry properly. Part of holding it to account is about making sure that it is providing a decent service level. That is something that I will look for it to carry on doing. Consultation is useful as a formal process, but it should always talk to its customers and get that sort of feedback.
I have to fess up that I probably cannot answer some of the nerdy questions right now, particularly on the reclassification of the agency. I will have to phone a friend or get my colleagues to reply on that point. Likewise, I think we would all agree that the extra £10 million is welcome in this space. How the MHRA will go about that distribution and how it will measure that effectiveness is something I will follow up in the detailed letter that I will send.
Similarly, on which countries are counted as “trusted”, my understanding is that often the MHRA looks at the processes that are in place—again, I will come back in detail on this. Rather than a country being trusted, per se, it is more about the scrutiny process that it undertook. Obviously a regulator would be accepted as good in a place, but again, I have some personal experience. If you can see that the CDC or the FDA has gone through a very similar process, does it really make sense to do that all again? Clearly, it is felt that I have not quite answered the question—but I mentioned the waivers.
At this point, I hope I have covered most of the questions that I can right now, but I will follow up in detail. I appreciate that noble Lords are generally supportive of what we are trying to do here, and that we all agree that the MHRA has an important part to play and that the cost recovery is a reasonable approach, particularly with some of the price increases in recent years. As I said, I will happily follow up in writing. On that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2023
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to present these draft rules, which deal with two vitally important issues, to the Committee. I will first touch on the provisions in relation to deprivation of citizenship in this instrument.
Keeping the public safe is a top priority for the Government. Deprivation of citizenship, where it is conducive to the public good, is reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm. It is key to our ability to preserve the UK’s national security. The Committee will recall that the deprivation measures in the Nationality and Borders Act attracted much considered and thorough debate. This House and the other place agreed that, in cases where the Secretary of State intends to make a deprivation order on the grounds that it is conducive to the public good without giving notice, an application must be made to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, or SIAC, which will consider the Secretary of State’s reasons not to give notice.
In November 2022, we took a first step towards implementation of this process by amending the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, giving the Lord Chancellor powers to amend procedure rules in relation to these applications. We now intend to make the required amendments to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003, which is the purpose of this instrument.
This instrument sets out a clear framework for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the Secretary of State when dealing with such applications. It makes clear the information an application is required to contain and makes provision for the Secretary of State to vary or withdraw an application. It confirms the Secretary of State as the single party to proceedings and makes provision to appeal a determination of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission where necessary. The instrument also sets out that the commission must give a determination within 14 days of receipt of an application or its variation. This reflects the fact that the Secretary of State may have to act quickly in the interests of national security. The instrument is the final stage in implementing the safeguards relating to Section 10 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which were agreed in the passage of that Act.
Turning to credibility statements, Sections 19 and 22 of the 2022 Act create additional behaviours that should result in an asylum or human rights claimant’s credibility being damaged. These includes a requirement for decision-makers to consider the late provision of evidence in response to an evidence notice or a priority removal notice, without good reasons, as behaviour that should be damaging to a claimant’s credibility.
As part of this suite of measures being introduced to encourage the timely provision of evidence in support of asylum and human rights claims, Sections 19 and 22 of the 2022 Act also establish a requirement for both the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules and the asylum and immigration chamber procedure rules to secure that when judges dispose of asylum and human rights decisions, and where credibility issues arise, they must include in their decisions a statement on how they have taken account of all potential credibility-damaging behaviours when reaching those decisions. These changes to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules effectively secure in rules what judges are already required to do, according to the current case law.
The instrument and the creation of new procedure rules, however, make it abundantly clear what judges are required to do. This will assist in making sure that there is clear and efficient decision-making. I commend these rules to the Committee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I hope that the Committee and the Deputy Chairman of Committees will understand that my sitting down today is not a sign of any disrespect to any Member or to the Committee. I thank the Minister for his introduction to this instrument. I do not think he will be surprised to know that I am not thanking him for the instrument itself, and very much not for the Nationality and Borders Act.
Those of us who find difficulty with proceedings in any number of areas, particularly when they are closed, are generally assured by the Government that we should not worry because there is judicial oversight. I cannot recall whether this was so in the case of Section 10 of the Nationality and Borders Act, but the instrument points up the hollowness of such an argument. As the Minister explained, Section 10 provides that the Secretary of State does not have to give notice of deprivation of citizenship in certain circumstances, and, if she
“reasonably considers it necessary, in the interests of”
certain matters,
“that notice … should not be given.”
That is in new Section 40(5A)(b) of the 1981 Act, which includes
“the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country”.
I understand the Minister to have included that in his list of high harms. It is quite easy to think of examples of what might be necessary so as not to annoy another state, which I think would come within the relationship between the UK and another state. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether he expects this power to be used very narrowly, and confirm that proportionality will apply?
We are reliant on the commission to assess the reasonableness of the view of the Secretary of State but even the commission does not have a free hand. Under Section 25E in the new Part 4A,
“The Commission must determine the application on paper without a hearing”.
My second question is: why is it “must” and not “may”? If we are to have any confidence in the process as a whole, should we not trust the commission to decide for itself whether determination on paper is appropriate? Can the Minister explain this? Can he explain to the Committee what will happen if the commission, having seen the paper application, has questions of the Secretary of State and wants to hear from counsel on her behalf?
I admit that I have no experience in this, other than debates in your Lordships’ House over the years and briefings from professionals and others involved in the process, but it seems that it is all too easy for such an application to become completely formulaic. Once there is a formula which is considered to pass the not “obviously flawed” threshold or test, that will go to the commission without, apparently, its being able to say, “Yes, but”. The “obviously flawed” test is in the new Schedule 4A. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that the Home Secretary herself could want a hearing? We will never know because there is no one to ask. We are not even getting that close to the territory of closed hearings and special advocates here.
I find it difficult to understand what role this appeal court would be left with. We will know next to nothing—probably nothing—about the use of these powers. Paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Memorandum tells us:
“As the Home Secretary decides each case personally and due to the very low number of cases expected to be affected by these provisions, no specific monitoring or review of these measures will be undertaken.”
In this situation, reporting is almost a synonym for monitoring. Can the Minister at least give an assurance that there will be reporting? I cannot see that it could be very difficult. What harm would be caused? I do not think that I need to spell out why a report in the public domain is desirable and essential. So often we are told, not only by Home Office Ministers but from the Dispatch Box, that there is no need for a review of a provision in primary legislation, because there is an automatic, periodic review of all legislation that the Government put through. However, no review of the measures means no review of Section 10. In our view, there should be reporting, not just of numbers but, for instance, of whether men or women are affected by deprivation orders, and, importantly, whether each individual has, or is considered to have, dual nationality. Indeed, can the Minister confirm—I appreciate that it is a bit beyond this instrument—whether the powers will be used only in the cases of individuals who are citizens of another state? Does the appetite for secrecy really mean that the state is protecting us?
I have been doing my best to avoid reference to an ongoing case, and I do not seek to draw the Minister into it—I know that he will not be drawn in—but it is justifiable to ask about the cohort of women known to be in a camp in Syria, who are held there because of their IS connections. Can one really say of them that their whereabouts are unknown? They are not going anywhere; they are known to be in the camp, although they cannot contact lawyers. For reasons the Grand Committee will understand, given his widely reported comments last month regarding a case before SIAC, have the Government consulted the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation? This is about legislation; Jonathan Hall is independent.
I have referred to judicial oversight. What I take from the instrument is that oversight of the process can be no more than minimal, and therefore oversight of the process is eliminated.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her remarks; I agree with much of what she said.
I will confine myself to dealing with the SI before us, notwithstanding what many of us thought about the Nationality and Borders Act. As the Minister told us in his helpful introduction, the SI makes two required amendments to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission after the introduction of the Nationality and Borders Act. They are two amendments which many of us sought to introduce. We all support keeping our nation safe, but as a democracy, even in circumstances of national security, safeguards need to be built in. We all agree that citizenship is a privilege and a right, but in depriving someone of their citizenship, some checks are needed, to say the least. We therefore welcome the changes to the process, although I may have comments about how we actually got here.
The amendment requiring the Secretary of State to make an application to SIAC when making an order to deprive someone of their citizenship is important and welcome. That application must include an explanation as to why it is necessary for that order to be made without providing notice to the individual, and SIAC will then be required to determine whether the Secretary of State’s view is “obviously flawed”.
I have some questions for the Minister. What does “obviously flawed” mean? Can he give an example of what is meant by that? Can the Minister say who can advise the Minister that such a deprivation of citizenship is necessary? Is it only the Home Secretary who can apply to SIAC, or can the Foreign Secretary, for instance, do it? I think that I know the answer, but, as I mentioned to the Minister outside the Grand Committee, it is sometimes necessary to put those things on the record. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to, are such applications made public in any way, either when they are made, or during or after any SIAC determination?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for those two considered contributions. I obviously appreciate the strength of feeling about deprivation of citizenship, but perhaps the Committee will bear with me if I repeat what I said earlier: maintaining our national security is the priority for the Government. It is vitally important that we are still able to take deprivation action, even if we do not know where a person is, to protect the public and keep our country safe. This instrument brings us closer to being able to do that, but let me explain the type of case we envisaged being covered by the new process of referral to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
Imagine someone who has been spying for another country against the UK and is now living at an unknown address in that other country; or the head of an organised crime group whose current whereabouts are known only through a police informant, and to use the address would put the life of that informant at risk; or a supporter of Daesh who has committed terrorist attacks and is hiding in the mountains of Syria. Such people pose a direct threat to the safety and security of the UK, and it simply cannot be right that our hands are tied because we cannot take away their British citizenship without giving them notice of the decision. Of course, depriving a person of the privilege of being British is a very significant thing to do. That is why the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 provides for judicial oversight of such decisions.
I will now take the opportunity briefly to address the additional points raised. I turn first to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I was asked initially to confirm whether the powers would be used in a narrow and proportionate way. That is certainly my understanding. The application of deprivation powers is clearly a serious use of state power and will be done only in cases which warrant that significant step. I was then asked about reporting. I imagine that the reference there was to reporting statistics in relation to deprivation. Some statistics are certainly provided but, for obvious national security reasons, detailed statistics cannot be. The Government take very seriously their obligations to keep these matters under review.
I was asked specifically whether the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation was consulted in respect of this measure. I am afraid I do not have the answer to that question to hand. I imagine that there has been some engagement with this legislation, but I will of course find out and write to the noble Baroness in respect of that question.
I turn to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. His first was on whether, in the rules, the phrase “Secretary of State” referred to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I think that phrase is subject generally to the definition in the Interpretation Act: that it applies to any of His Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State. But in practical terms, I certainly understand that the power will be exercised by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
I was then asked as to the extent to which the existence of the proceedings should be made public. The view is taken that these proceedings are generally, for reasons of national security, best done in a closed environment and, we would suggest, best done on the papers. In the circumstances of an application to commence proceedings without giving notice, the Home Office is the only party to proceedings and, given that this is about the administrative process of giving notice, it is unnecessary to have an open hearing with several judges. The individual will not be aware of the deprivation decision at this point and will not be in a position to give legal direction. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission will determine whether the Secretary of State’s decision not to give notice is “obviously flawed”, in line with judicial review principles. I hope that answers the next question which the noble Lord asked me, which was, “What is obviously flawed?”. It is something that would be upset on judicial review for being unlawful in the public law sense, so when it would be unreasonable or unlawful.
I was asked whether legal aid will be available. Obviously, in the case of no notification, it is hard to envisage a situation, given the lack of co-operation of the other party, where legal aid would be appropriate. But certainly, in principle, in relation to deprivation proceedings, legal aid is available and there are no plans to alter that.
As to the right of appeal, obviously, SIAC itself is an appellate body, in that one is appealing against or challenging a decision of the Secretary of State. Further appeals under SIAC are possible under the procedure rules; indeed, we have seen in various recent cases the involvement of the Court of Appeal.
I was asked about the time for making a determination described in Regulation 7, at new paragraph 25E of the rules, the provision that
“The Commission must determine the application no later than 14 days after”
receipt of the application. That period was agreed with the chair of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, as it was suggested that it was an appropriate time for the chair to consider that application, balanced against the potential urgency. Of course, the only question the chair is considering there is whether it is appropriate for notice to be served—that is, whether the Secretary of State’s application should succeed.
I turn to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in respect of Rule 25B set out in Regulation 7 and, in particular, the question of the meaning of Rule 25B(3). If the Secretary of State has the information listed, it must be provided, but if the Secretary of State does not have it, the Secretary of State does not have to provide it, and that does not prevent an application going ahead. Ultimately, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission will decide whether it has sufficient information to decide the application. Clearly, if it decides that it does not have adequate information, it will refuse the application.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
If I understood the Minister correctly, he just said that if the Secretary of State does not know the information, the Secretary of State does not have to provide it to SIAC, but the Secretary of State is applying to SIAC for a deprivation of citizenship. How can you deprive it if you do not know what it is?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
This is the application process to proceed without serving notice. The Secretary of State may know, for example, the person’s name, the person’s nationality or nationalities and the relevant Home Office reference, but not the person’s correct date of birth. As I understand the operation of sub-paragraph (3), that means that the absence of that one particular, given that the Secretary of State does not know it, does not invalidate the application.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I was not asking about date of birth, was I? I was asking about where the Secretary of State does not know the nationality. I appreciate the case where you do not know all of the name, and so on—but it seems to me pretty key, if you are starting the process to deprive someone of citizenship but you do not know what their nationality is.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is clearly right—this comes back to another question I was going to deal with in a moment—that the power can be exercised only in cases of persons entitled to more than one nationality. The question is whether the department knows of an entitlement to British nationality and an entitlement to another nationality. If there are other potential nationality entitlements, it may be that, if those are not known, their absence from the application will not of itself invalidate the application. That is, as I understand it, the intent of that sub-paragraph.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I do not want to dance on the head of a pin, but now the Minister has got into the potential for denying potential nationalities, and I would say that that is fraught with difficulties. I will leave it there—but it is an interesting point about the need for clarity. The Home Office not knowing what someone’s nationality is and being able to miss that out from a SIAC appeal as the basis of a process leading to, at some point, depriving someone of nationality or citizenship, seems a bit much.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can certainly write to the noble Lord about it, but the short point is this: if SIAC is concerned, on the balance of probabilities, that somebody has only British citizenship and not another, it will not make an order of deprivation. I hope that, to some extent, answers his question.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I think the Minister is saying that it is perfectly open to SIAC to reject that application on the basis that the Government do not know what they are doing with respect to that nationality and that they should come back at a future date when they have done a bit more work on it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Indeed, as with any court.
In respect of the noble Lord’s question on Rule 47 as to credibility, the question being whether a claimant’s good reasons for responding late to a priority removal notice would be taken into account in cases that go to SIAC, the answer is yes.
To pick up one point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the use against dual citizens, it is right and clear in the statutory regime that an order using a deprivation power cannot be made that would have the effect of rendering a person stateless, hence the need for two nationalities, except that there is a very limited provision in Section 40(4A) of the Act, but that power has not been used to date. In any event, deprivation on conducive grounds is used sparingly and against those who pose a serious threat to the UK. It is correct that the conducive power is limited so that it can be applied only to those who are dual citizens or where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person can become a national of another country. Parliament chose to enact the power on that basis to avoid the prospect of leaving individuals stateless, which would be contrary to the UK’s commitments under the 1961 statelessness convention.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
If the Minister is coming to his closing paragraph to urge this instrument, then I am afraid that I have a number of questions to remind him of. However, I am glad to hear what he said about dual nationality. I was concerned because I thought he used the phrase “potential nationalities”. I do not know how one can potentially be a national of a particular country.
I will run through some points that I do not think he has been able to pick up. I raised the proportionality point in connection with Section 40(5A)(b)(iv), which is when the Secretary of State considers it necessary in the interest of the relationship between the UK and another country. I hope the Minister can confirm that there will be proportionality in that, rather than the general point he made.
I do not think the Minister answered the question on “must” deal with the matter on the papers rather than “may”, nor my question on whether the commission can call for more information and can even ask to hear from the Secretary of State.
The Minister referred to paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Memorandum. He might need to take this away, but to repeat, we are told by this that, because there is expected to be a “very low number” of cases,
“no specific monitoring or review … will be undertaken”.
My question was about reporting and the Minister answered on reporting in a general way. I would be glad to hear that there will be specific reporting on these deprivation without notice applications.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
In relation to Rule 25E, the noble Baroness is quite right. It is imperative that the commission determines the application on paper and without a hearing. As I elucidated a moment ago, that process is deliberately framed so that it can be resolved quickly because of the national security issues implicit in a deprivation decision. I am afraid that it is a “must” for a reason, and not a “may”. Clearly, SIAC, like any court, is able to make a decision on the information available to it and, if it feels that it lacks information, it is entirely open to it to ask for further information from the party appearing before it. I hope that that answers the question.
On the dual nationality point, the word “potential” is significant. The question in the statute is whether a person is eligible for citizenship of another country. That gives rise to the power to deprive under Section 40(4A), which is the power that I mentioned, which has yet to be deployed to date. As to reporting, I hear the noble Baroness’s question and I shall find out further detail and write to her in respect of it. I hope that I have therefore addressed the questions posed.
I want to be absolutely clear that the power to deprive an individual of citizenship has been possible for over a century. Section 10 of the Nationality and Borders Act does not change the reasons for which a person can be deprived of their citizenship, nor does it remove a person’s right of appeal. It is simply about the mechanics of how a deprivation decision is conveyed to the individual concerned and recognises that, in certain exceptional circumstances, it may not be possible to give notice.
The Home Office will always try to serve any deprivation notice at the point of a decision, including providing information about the person’s statutory appeal rights. Where that is not possible, and the person later makes contact with the Home Office, they will be issued with a decision notice and an explanation of their appeal rights. Section 10 of the Nationality and Borders Act clarifies that the timescales for lodging an appeal in these cases starts from when they are given the notice of the deprivation decision and not when the decision was first made.
In conclusion, this instrument is in the final stage of implementing the safeguards, as noble Lords noted, which will hold the Government to account in relation to decisions to deprive a person of citizenship without first giving them notice. It will also ensure that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is required to include credibility statements in any relevant decisions that it makes that dispose of asylum and human rights claims. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Electricity Supplier Obligations (Green Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Green Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations, and the Electricity Supplier (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, were laid on 8 and 20 February 2023 respectively, and were recently debated in the other place.
The purpose of the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 is to improve the operation of the EII exemption scheme. This will ensure that access to the scheme for existing recipients is not negatively impacted by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, and that new applications can benefit from the scheme earlier than would otherwise be possible.
The purpose of the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Green Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 is to ensure that electricity suppliers in Great Britain contribute to CfD scheme costs more in proportion to their market share, regardless of whether they source electricity from the EU or the UK.
I acknowledge the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the other place, all of which have provided helpful reviews of these regulations.
These statutory instruments amend the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Amendment & Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2015 and the Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) Regulations 2014.
The Electricity Supplier Obligations (Amendment & Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2015 provide for a scheme that helps to mitigate the risk of carbon leakage by exempting eligible businesses from a proportion of the costs of funding renewable electricity and minimise the risk of companies or production moving to overseas territories with less robust net-zero targets. These are costs associated with funding the renewables obligation, the contracts for difference and the small-scale feed-in tariff schemes. The costs associated with these schemes are passed on by electricity suppliers through their electricity bills. They have a particularly high impact on foundation industries such as steel, paper, chemicals and cement, which are critical to many infrastructure projects and provide well-paid, highly skilled jobs across the United Kingdom. As foundation industries, these businesses are critical in the development of new projects, including offshore wind, and therefore play an important role in the transition to net zero.
The exemption also provides relief for new and emerging industries, such as battery manufacturers—critical to electric vehicles—and manufacturers of semi-conductors, which are of key importance to the UK high-tech economy. They provide jobs not only directly but indirectly, such as in the aerospace and automotive sectors. They employ people from Cornwall to Kent and from Grangemouth to south Wales.
The original legislation was put in place in 2017 and since then over 320 businesses have benefited from the exemption. Businesses which applied in 2017 are now due to be reassessed under the regulations; they will need to be reassessed this year using the last three years of data. For these businesses, this will include the 2020 and 2021 trading periods. This new instrument makes amendments that will allow businesses to exclude data from that period, which, of course, does not reflect the normal course of their business, thereby preventing an unintended consequence from the Covid pandemic’s effect on industry.
This instrument also allows companies applying for an exemption to apply for relief with one quarter of financial data, rather than two. This will help and encourage businesses and start-ups to apply for relief.
The sectors eligible for the existing exemption scheme employ around 400,000 workers and account for more than a quarter of total UK exports. Many are located in areas of economic disadvantage and provide good, high-paid jobs. In the UK, our electricity prices for medium and large industrial users were the highest among the EU countries in 2021. Clearly, electricity costs have a significant impact on the competitiveness of such enterprises. The industries affected operate mainly in international markets, so higher electricity prices place them at a competitive disadvantage, resulting in the risk of carbon leakage, whereby companies choose to move their production to countries with less ambitious climate policies.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I assume that we will take both SIs together. I thank my noble friend for bringing forward these two regulations, with which I broadly agree. I will limit my remarks to the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend said. He said that the costs arising from the scheme will be distributed to all other users. Does that mean all other users, both domestic—that is, households—as well as industrial? If that is the case, is this part of the charge on standing charges? I will put down a marker—and I hope my noble friend will agree with me—that it seems very unfair that at this time of household stress and cost of living constraints, standing charges are the one element of a bill that we are not able to control. As individual householders we can control the unit charge, but we cannot control the standing charge. Therefore, if this is being spread across all users, both domestic and industrial, as my noble friend indicated, it seems a little unfair that this will be or is already an additional cost on the standing charge. Would it be possible at some stage to have a general debate on what constitutes the standing charges? I realise that that is not the purpose of today’s debate, but that would be very helpful indeed. My question is, what is the impact of this measure, with which I am in broad agreement, on household bills?
I absolutely accept that the EII plays a useful role, covering high electricity-using businesses such as, we are told, in the very helpful paragraph from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report on this, energy-intensive users in sectors such as
“steel, paper, plastics, chemicals, cement and glass.”
Cement and ceramics are often overlooked, despite being high-energy users. That paragraph also says that the charge covers potential market failures:
“the Energy Intensive Industries … Exemption Scheme”—
to which my noble friend refers—
“offers an exemption for eligible companies to receive a discount from their electricity costs to address high energy costs and potential market failures.”
Another question that arises from this is: in the event of a market failure relating to an industrial user in this category—I am sure that a number may be teetering on the edge—is it left to the others in this category to pick up the costs of that failure, or is it once again a charge to all users, domestic and industrial?
My two final points are, first, that no impact assessment was done, which possibly might have been useful. Secondly, paragraph 10.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“This consultation ran for 5 weeks and closed on the 16 September 2022.”
That seems a short period to run a consultation which covers the holiday period. Was there any particular reason for that, or had the department taken other soundings before it launched the formal consultation? However, with those few queries, I support the two regulations before us this afternoon.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of the SIs. I will take the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 first and then the other one second. I can broadly support this SI, but I have a few points that I want to raise.
The Explanatory Memorandum explains that the proposals were made in the review of the scheme to provide relief to energy-intensive industries for a proportion of
“the indirect costs of funding renewable electricity policies”.
However, it makes no mention of the responses to the consultation. I am afraid that I have been unable to find a government response on these proposals. My first question to the Minister is: is that response in the public domain and, if so, where can I find it? Also, how many consultees responded on questions 3 and 4, which cover the proposals in this regulation? What was the distribution of views and what alternative proposals were made? Did any consultees highlight risks or unintended consequences? It would have been useful to have seen responses on that.
As trading data will be unaudited, what independent checks will be carried out on that data to ensure that gross value added is not being under-reported or energy costs overstated to meet the eligibility criteria of at least 20% of the GVA being from electricity costs? When will the Government respond to the other proposals in the review?
I will close with a thought on a more strategic outlook that the Government could take. Rather than piecemeal subsidies, a possible longer term and more comprehensive solution to carbon leakage would be the carbon border adjustment mechanism, whereby high-emissions industries migrate to the parts of the world with the lowest effective price on carbon. A CBAM would allow tariffs to be charged on imported goods in proportion to the difference between their emissions and those for the corresponding goods made at home. Ministers reported in May 2022 that they would consult on such a mechanism by the end of last year. That time has come and gone, so I wonder whether the Minister could provide an update to the Committee on when we might have that consultation. There are rumours that it might be due to start in the next month or two. Can the Minister confirm that or say no to it?
I turn to the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Green Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. The Minister mentioned briefly, and it was laid out clearly in the Explanatory Memorandum, why the UK’s departure from the EU means that the UK Government are no longer required to make provision to exempt certified green imported electricity from EU member states from the electricity supplier obligations—that is, as the Minister explained, from payments which are used to support feed-in tariffs and contracts for difference. This instrument will remove the green excluded electricity exemption from the contracts for difference scheme so that the electricity from renewable sources that is imported to Great Britain from an EU member state, and is currently exempt from the contracts for difference reconciliation scheme, will no longer be exempt.
The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that the current
“exemption benefits licensed electricity suppliers in Great Britain who import renewable electricity from EU member States”.
That is clear so there is an incentive to import green electricity, as things stand, which is a good thing. Can the Minister confirm that the proposed abolition of the exemption means that the energy supplier obligation reconciliation payments will have to go up, as a result of losing this benefit? That is the logical conclusion of the statement in the EM. Removing the exemption will put in place an incentive instead for energy suppliers to move away from green energy imports from the EU, and I wonder whether that is the Government’s intention.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thorough explanation of the regulations and the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Hamwee, for their contributions and questions, which the Minister will no doubt deal with when he comes back.
I will take the reverse order from the Minister: I will deal first with the green amendment and then with the energy intensive amendment. Contracts for difference are the main way in which the Government support low-carbon electricity generation projects. While we were in the EU, a supplier could seek a reduction in their liability proportion in the levy by offsetting low-carbon electricity generated in the EU area. The UK is no longer under an obligation to offset any low-carbon electricity generated in the EU area. Following industry consultation—I do not know how thorough it was, or how much there was—removing the green excluded electricity was determined to be the fairest way of proceeding following our exit from the EU. As I understand it, the supplier obligation applies to all licensed suppliers of electricity to pay for the contracts for difference.
The statutory instrument is relatively straightforward: it removes something that was implemented when contracts for difference first became the major instrument of the development of renewals in the UK. It looks to close a potential loophole in state aid regulations. Suppliers importing electricity from Europe should not have that supplier obligation applied to them and the electricity they are bringing in from European sources. As we no longer have responsibilities over state aid, it is no longer appropriate to continue with the arrangement that was dependent on the state aid loophole. In the past, suppliers had to provide proof of power coming in to claim that there was no money to pay, as it were, for that energy coming in. Now the opposite is the case: suppliers will have to provide evidence of what is coming in as a renewable source, via the interconnector, from Europe to ensure that they pay. Can the Minister say why any company would now produce evidence of green energy imports through the interconnector in order to pay? Nothing in the regulations requires that evidence is given so that payment is made, and there is nothing about enforcement action or penalties against bodies which do not provide information to enable future payments to be made.
Also, there is no inversion in place for the relationship between the strike price and the reference price. As I understand it, that means that, instead of normal procedure as far as the contracts for difference in this country are concerned, the supplier does not get a payment from the Government in respect of the strike price. As the reference price is currently above the strike price, the supplier has to pay back into the Low Carbon Contracts Company. The company then has a reasonable obligation to pay back that money to suppliers. So I ask the Minister: are companies now obligated under the SI to pay money into the LCCC for contracts for difference which were pre-exempted, and also to get money from the LCCC when the general strike price is inverted against the reference price?
The energy intensive industry exemption, as the Minister said, provides relief to around 320 electricity-intensive companies in the UK. It launched in 2017, and it needs to be reassessed this year under the scheme’s rules. Following consultation, the Government decided to implement two minor changes to the operation of the scheme. The amendments to the scheme are designed to improve accessibility to the EII scheme and to account for the Covid-19 pandemic period. First, it will allow companies applying under the exemption from the indirect costs of funding contracts for difference, the renewables obligation and the small-scale feed-in tariffs to be able to feed in three of the previous five years for assessment, as the Minister said, in order to account for possible lower trading and electricity usage during the 2020 and 2021 pandemic years. Secondly, it will allow new companies to apply with only one quarter of trading rather than two, as was the case previously.
Labour does not oppose those sensible changes which take account of what happened during the Covid period. Companies will be judged against their present performance rather than that of previous years. It is likely that companies previously exempted from the scheme can now be brought into it. Does the Minister agree with that? Could he comment on the observation made in the other place that the mining of hard coal is on the eligibility list? Given the environmental effects of that industry, it seems at least curious as to why it may be included under the EII scheme.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. The electricity-intensive industries exemption provides relief for key foundation industries, including companies operating in the steel, paper, chemicals, cement and glass sectors. The scheme also supports emerging sectors ,such as battery manufacturers and companies making semiconductors. The companies this scheme supports are located all over the UK and provide high-paid, good-quality jobs both directly and in the supply chain.
These EII regulations are necessary to improve the operation of the current excluded electricity scheme. They will make it easier for start-ups and new businesses to apply. They will also allow businesses to account for the impact of Covid-19 when reapplying for relief. We will update and publish our guidance on the GOV.UK website to ensure that businesses are aware of these proposed changes, and proactively engage with stakeholders to ensure that they are too.
Following the consultation in spring 2023, we will come forward with our proposals on the recently announced British industry supercharger, which aims to roll out further support to important manufacturing businesses. This will be through exempting firms from certain costs arising from renewable energy obligations, as well as the GB capacity market costs, while also exploring reductions on network charges, which are the costs that industrial users pay for their supply of electricity.
The proposed removal of the green excluded electricity exemptions from the CfD scheme means that a supplier in Great Britain will pay a proportion of the contract for difference scheme cost that is closer to their market share. It will remove a condition placed on the British scheme by the European Commission and ensure that the supplier obligation is applied to GB suppliers in accordance with their market share.
We are proposing these legislative amendments following a public consultation. It generated 28 responses from a cross-section of the energy industry, representative bodies, brokers and other concerned parties, with the policy proposals receiving wide support.
I will move on to the specific questions raised. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about redistribution costs, the impact of standing charges, impact assessment and the consultation period. I say to her that, for the EII exemption scheme, any increase in the bills of non-eligible consumers arising from these changes is likely to be extremely minimal. For this reason, it was felt that a new impact assessment was not required. The redistributed cost applies only to the policy cost element of an electricity bill and does not impact or increase the current standing charge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked a number of questions about consultation responses, the number of consultees and the distribution of comment, and about the carbon border adjustment mechanism. The Government’s response to the consultation will be published shortly and it will set out further detail on the distribution of comments received. I can tell the noble Baroness that, in total, there were 64 responses to the EII exemption consultation, including from electricity suppliers, currently eligible businesses and other organisations.
Regarding the distribution of comments, there was significant support for the amendments proposed under this SI, as they improve access to the schemes and ensure that firms are not disadvantaged by the impact of the Covid pandemic. The scheme continues to have a robust process both for initial applications by EIIs and for the required reassessment that an EII needs to go through to continue to receive the exemption. This includes an assessment of the company’s accounts, its electricity bills and any other supporting evidence. As officials are in regular dialogue with firms in the energy-intensive sectors it was felt that, given the relatively minor and technical nature of the changes, five weeks represented a sufficient consultation period. As stated, we will publish our formal response shortly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, also asked about a carbon border adjustment mechanism. I agree that this could represent an easier solution to the problem of carbon leakage, but I am sure she will accept that it is more of a long-term change. The EU is also looking at it on a longer timescale. We will shortly publish a consultation on a potential CBAM, but I am sure the noble Baroness will realise that there are lots of potential implications of such a mechanism.
Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 32nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Home Detention Curfew) Order 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Home Detention Curfew) Order 2023.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move. As your Lordships will know, the home detention curfew—or HDC—scheme allows certain prisoners to be released from prison early and kept on an electronically-tagged curfew in their home. The scheme was first established some 20 years ago. The statutory instrument before us extends the permitted maximum HDC by 45 days—around six weeks—from 135 days to 180 days. I will say a little more about the effect of that in a moment.
In parallel with the statutory change, which extends the HDC period, the Government are at the same time introducing non-statutory policy changes to exclude certain kinds of offenders from the scope of HDC. As your Lordships know, in statutory terms, certain offenders are totally excluded from HDC—for example, when they are sentenced to more than four years or are registered sex offenders, terrorists, or others. Other kinds of offenders are presumed unsuitable under the relevant HMPPS policy framework, including, for example, foreign national offenders liable to deportation, those convicted of possession of an offensive weapon, possession of firearms, and so on.
Following the discussions that took place in connection with the passing of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Newlove, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made important contributions, further offences are now being added to the “presumed unsuitable list” to coincide with the coming into force of the statutory instrument on 6 June. These are offences relating, for example, to stalking; harassment; the breach of a non-molestation or similar order; controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship contrary to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; and non-fatal strangulation and suffocation. In other words, offenders guilty of those offences will be presumed not suitable for HDC, unless the prison governor concerned is persuaded of exceptional circumstances.
In addition, since April 2022, it has been mandatory for information to be gathered from police and children’s services about domestic abuse or safeguarding risks. It is only after that information has been gathered and a full risk assessment made that an offender may be released on HDC. While the HDC period is being extended, these parallel measures protect the public—in particular, from potential abusers.
The net effect of these measures, in parallel, is that fewer offenders are likely to be eligible for HDC, whereas those who are eligible may be on HDC for up to six weeks longer. In practice, the net increase of prisoners out on HDC is expected to be about 300 up from the current figure, which is about 1,850. I should add that, in practice, because of the requirement to serve a minimum of a quarter of any prison sentence, this statutory change affects those serving between 18 months and four years, with those serving between two and four years eligible for the maximum period of 180 days.
In addition to these developments, technology in this area continues to improve. GPS now allows the monitoring of offenders away from home, which also enables certain types of offender, such as those known as acquisitive offenders, to be targeted. If one is wandering away to do some shoplifting, the GPS can follow one, as it were. It also now permits alcohol monitoring, so alcohol monitoring tags have been rolled out across England and Wales. This technology development is supporting the policy.
HDC has been used successfully for 20 years to better manage the transition of eligible offenders from prison back into the community, and the changes I have outlined continue along that path. The other place has just approved the statutory instrument this afternoon, and I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that introduction, and we support the SI. As the Minister said, the current maximum period that an eligible offender may spend in the community on home detention curfew is 135 days, and this is being increased to 180 days through the order. He gave an example and talked about the improvement in the technology for those who are on HDC. Are all prisoners on home detention curfew on some form of electronic monitoring, or are some deemed to have no monitoring necessary?
The Minister also spoke about the greater use of GPS monitoring, rather than just home curfew monitoring, and alcohol monitoring. Would he care to speculate on what other forms of technological improvement we might see in the next few years? I have been involved, on and off, in giving tags to people on bail, and so on, and I have seen the technology used and abused over the years. It is interesting how the technology has developed and how the courts and prison system is learning to work with it appropriately. I should appreciate it if the Minister would speculate a little on how that might change in future.
The MoJ states that the purpose of running the home detention curfew is to ensure that offenders have a smooth transition back into the community from custody. We agree with that, and we support the scheme as a whole. However, we say that there is limited evidence to support the claim about reoffending statistics. The draft Explanatory Memorandum points to research published in 2011 that shows that offenders released on home detention curfew
“were no more likely to engage in criminal behaviour”.
That is a rather lukewarm endorsement of the policy—even though we do support it. The Ministry has said that it will publish internal evaluations on the expansion of the scheme in 2024. Given the lack of clear supportive evidence for the effectiveness of the scheme, despite the length of time it has been running, will the Government ensure that robust evaluations are made as soon as possible?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his remarks and questions, and I shall deal with them as far as I can.
I understand that all prisoners on HDC are on some form of electronic monitoring, and some have a kind of location monitoring in addition to help them, so that one knows more precisely where they are exactly and what they are up to, if I may put it like that.
I am reluctant to speculate today on exactly how far this scheme will develop, and I am sure that the Government will be very interested in drawing on the experience of the noble Lord himself and others on how it works out. He referred to the “use and abuse” of the systems. Of course, every time one invents new technology, someone tries to find some way around it or some way of defeating it, so we will need to work that through. However, the general direction of travel is that the technology is improving all the time and we will learn by experience how to use it in an appropriate way to achieve the mutual objectives of helping prisoners back into the community.
On the “no more likely” point of the general efficacy of home detention curfews, the Government’s position is that they work and that they help people to make the transition from prison to the community. It is certainly the Government’s position that the improvements in technology that I have mentioned—the location and alcohol monitoring—will reinforce it, so that is how it will evolve. We have committed to make an internal evaluation in 2024, and we probably have to wait a little bit of time until we see how it goes, so that we can properly evaluate the new extension we are talking about. We will certainly make that evaluation, which will be further information on which policy decisions can be taken.
On the noble Lord’s question about suitability criteria, if I did not mention stalking, I should have done so—it is at the top of the list. The scheme offers a very important protection for the public and for people particularly concerned with stalking and the stalking risk, as it were.
I have endeavoured to answer the questions of the noble Lord as best I can, and I therefore commend the instrument to the Grand Committee.
Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the Grand Committee do consider the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the statutory instrument before us today amends the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, which established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme 2017. The statutory instrument was approved in the other place on 21 February.
At present, the fee-paid judicial pension scheme provides only for eligible fee-paid judicial service on or after 7 April 2000. The main purpose of the statutory instrument is to provide pension benefits for certain eligible fee-paid service before 7 April 2000. The situation arises as a result of three cases.
The first was O’Brien 1 in 2013, when it was decided that fee-paid judges were workers and therefore eligible for pension benefits that mirrored those of salaried judges under the then judicial pension scheme. That was from 7 April 2000, the date when the relevant EU regulation was transposed into UK law. It led to the 2017 regulations.
In 2018, in O’Brien 2, the European Court of Justice found that eligible fee-paid judicial service prior to 7 April 2000 should also be taken into account for the purposes of calculating pension benefits. If one was already a judge on 7 April 2000, service before that date should count towards the pension.
In 2019, in the Miller case, the UK Supreme Court found that the time limit for fee-paid pension entitlement claims runs from the date on which the judge retired from judicial service rather than the date on which they left the fee-paid office concerned. You had until your ultimate retirement date to make the relevant claim.
Although we now have a new judicial pension scheme, these regulations ensure that the judgments I have just referred to are fully implemented and that the judges concerned get pension benefits in respect of their historical fee-paid judicial service.
The detail of the regulations is, if I may say so, impenetrably complex, as a result of different pension arrangements over the years. There was a different arrangement in force between 1981 and 1995, and then again between 1995 and a later date. These regulations deal with the pre-1995 provisions as well as the post-1995 situation. They make certain changes or additions to eligible offices and provide for a way of dealing with small amounts; one can commute to have a lump-sum payment, if there is just a small pension entitlement; they provide for the purchase of additional benefits; they apply to various techniques for reconciling various amounts outstanding; and they correct certain minor errors. These are very detailed matters indeed, but the essential purpose is to make sure that the pensions to which those judges are entitled are enshrined in the statutory instrument.
There was a consultation in 2020, and the responses received were broadly supportive. Officials have been in close touch with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, which have been kept apprised of developments, and, as I said, there has been close consultation with the judges affected.
In closing, I will make two points. Questions have been raised as to whether these regulations are affected by the retained EU law Bill currently before Parliament. On the assumption that the Bill becomes law, the regulations provide for already acquired pension rights, and I can confirm that they will not be sunsetted or otherwise adversely affected as a result of that Bill. Assuming that in due course it becomes an Act of Parliament, the relevant rights will be preserved.
Lastly, I point out, in case anyone has ever glanced at my CV, that I have no personal claim under any of these regulations.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the cavalry has just arrived in the form of my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, who is a pensions expert. Unfortunately, he will not say anything on the SI, which I will take as a level of endorsement of it. He is nodding his head—jolly good.
As the Minister said, the SI amends the judicial pensions regulations 2017, which established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme and provide pension benefits for eligible fee-paid judicial service from 7 April 2000 to 31 March 2022. It mirrors the pension benefits for salaried judges under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.
As the Minister set out, the SI amends the 2017 regulations, as required by O’Brien 2 litigation. In several ways, it is very complex. The Labour Party supports the SI. In essence, its purpose is to ensure that the work of fee-paid and salaried judges is undertaken and remunerated in the same way, and that that is recognised in their pensions.
I thank the Minister in particular for being very clear about the retained EU law Bill. I was indeed going to ask about that, and he could not have been clearer in saying that the Government will not put any sunset clauses in and will expect to retain all the provisions under this SI after the retained EU law Bill is passed.
I will go no further than that, because the Minister has answered the questions I was going to ask. As I said, the Labour Party is happy to support this statutory instrument.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, in those circumstances, I commend the instrument to the Committee.
House of Lords
Community Pharmacies
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Cumberlege
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for making the best use of community pharmacies.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s name on the Order Paper.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, community pharmacies make a vital contribution to the provision of primary care. The Government and the sector continue to implement their vision, agreed in 2019, to make better use of the skills and expertise of community pharmacy teams. This aims to develop the role of community pharmacy in managing demand for urgent care, supporting optimal use of medicines and prevention and detection services. We continue to explore what else community pharmacy could be commissioned to do.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that, since 2015, funding for community pharmacies has been cut by around 30% and around 720 pharmacies have closed? Many pharmacies have had to reduce their hours and provide prescriptions and other services at a loss. The NHS estimates that 6% of all GP consultations could be transferred to community pharmacies; however, this service is limited due to unnecessary bureaucracy, requiring patients to be referred by their GP. Can my noble friend please confirm whether the Government will enter into discussions with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee to look at introducing a fairly funded “pharmacy first” service as soon as possible, to help to relieve GPs’ workload?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that important question regarding pharmacies. Although we are yet to label our service offer as “pharmacy first”, we have already introduced and funded a range of services in community pharmacy that make use of the clinical skills of pharmacy teams and take the pressure off GPs and other parts of the NHS. We continue to discuss with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee how the Government can best support community pharmacies and the sector to provide services to patients.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Due to government policy, primary care networks are recruiting pharmacists from community settings. In January 2023, it was confirmed that about 4,100 pharmacies have been recruited into PCNs, with a large proportion of those being recruited from community pharmacy. Community pharmacy owners are now becoming more dependent on locum pharmacists to fill vacancies, and the fees have gone up by 80%. What will the Government do to deal with this problem as a matter of urgency to support local community pharmacists?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
Health Education England’s 2021 community pharmacy workforce survey identified an increase in the number of pharmacists from 23,284 in 2017 to 27,406. From 2026, all newly graduated pharmacists will have a prescription qualification, and we will upskill the existing workforce. This will provide further opportunity for the community pharmacy sector to better support the delivery of primary care.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
Of the 720 permanent pharmacy closures since 2015, 41% are in 20% of the most deprived areas. I cannot see how this squares with the Government’s vision of using pharmacies to relieve pressures on GPs and primary care. Both large and small pharmacies are affected, including those in supermarkets such as Sainsbury’s, Asda and Tesco. Boots is reducing essential pharmacy services, such as the provision of blister medicine packs for the safe taking and administering of daily medicines by patients, domiciliary care workers and carers who look after elderly and disabled patients. How will the Minister address this issue, which stands to affect thousands of patients?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, 80% of the population live within 20 minutes’ walking distance of a pharmacy. There are twice as many pharmacies in more deprived areas. Despite a reduction in the network in recent years, there are still about the same number of pharmacies today as there were 10 years ago.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, in answer to my Written Question last November the noble Lord, Lord Caine, conceded that
“This Government has had no discussions with Community Pharmacy NI about funding for pharmacies in Northern Ireland.”
In the subsequent four months, the crisis facing community pharmacies in the Province, which rural communities are so reliant on, has continued, with the future of some clearly at risk. I urge the Minister to ensure that community pharmacies in Northern Ireland are given active support from His Majesty’s Government so that they do not become the latest casualties of the political vacuum in the Province.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
Unfortunately, I was not in the House in November last year, but I hear very strongly what the noble Lord is saying about healthcare and pharmacies in Northern Ireland and I will certainly feed that back to the department.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what has to happen in the independent pharmaceutical sector for the Government to realise that there is a crisis? This has been running for years. Independent pharmacies are closing at an alarming rate, as we have heard from other Members of this House. The Government seem to be in total denial. What has to happen for the Government to recognise and confront this issue? How many pharmacies have to close? Are they waiting for them all to close before they recognise the problem?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, there are more than 11,000 pharmacies in England. Some people know the true value of local pharmacies, but people do not always know just what pharmacies are able to do and how skilled pharmacists are at diagnosing minor illnesses. We want to continue to unleash the potential and make the best possible use of the skills and knowledge of community pharmacy teams to support the wider NHS. As I said earlier, from 2026 all newly graduated pharmacists will have a prescribing qualification: we are upskilling the existing workforce.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that local pharmacists may well be the people who know best of all who is seriously ill and potentially at the end of life in a particular area? They may have been involved in dispensing a just-in-case box for the family. They may know that that a patient is taking a lot of complementary therapies but, without access to the clinical record and a systematic way of feeding the information in, they become an add-on to the clinical service, rather than being able to contribute. They may also be unable to give really appropriate, targeted advice as part of the clinical team. Will the Government seriously look at ways of ensuring that community pharmacists can, with patients’ permission, access the clinical record, to really understand what is happening to these patients, who are very vulnerable and need good advice?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Baroness raises several good points there. From my personal experience of pharmacies, they do have access to those records, but unfortunately that is not across the board and there is still more to be done on that front.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister like to have another go at answering the question from the noble Lord, Lord Grade? I did not really get from him any sense of how the Government are dealing with the crisis in community pharmacy. There has been a 30% cut in real terms since 2015. As he said, many independent pharmacies are going to the wall. They are faced today with huge inflationary pressures, yet all we get are platitudes from the Government. When will they do something?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, they are private businesses and some close, some open and there are changes. As I said in an answer I gave earlier, there are still the same number of pharmacies as there were 10 years ago.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, what proportion of GP services could be provided by pharmacies?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, we can anticipate that our Prime Minister understands something about pharmacy for obvious reasons. In my experience over some years, the opportunity lies in the hands of local NHS commissioners. The contract allows them to commission additional services such as minor illness services and, in the past, medicine use reviews, but they often did not do so. What steps might the Government now take with ICBs to encourage them to undertake more of the commissioning of additional services?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that very good question. ICBs are encouraged to do exactly what he says. I refer to an answer I gave earlier: from summer 2023, NHS England will start piloting prescribing services in community pharmacies—exactly as he suggests.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, the best use of community pharmacies will come at a price. Can the Minister give us an indication of how much that will cost? Has anyone calculated how much it will save GPs? If he does not have the figures to hand, could he put them in the Library?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Baroness is exactly right: I do not have those figures to hand, but I will write to her.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My noble friend is aware of the work I do with dispensing doctors and the fact that they have a role to play where there is no pharmacy. Is he as concerned as I am that routine procedures, such as syringing of ears, are being taken away from general practice? Why can general practitioners not continue to do such routine procedures?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My noble friend raises a very good point. I have experience in my own family of GP practice doing exactly that. I am not aware of that being deliberately taken away but, if she wants to speak to me about a specific case, I will certainly look into it.
Police and Crime Commissioners
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have held with the Police and Crime Commissioners for Cleveland, and for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the Government engage regularly with PCCs and chief constables across all force areas. There have been no recent specific discussions between the Government and the PCC for Cleveland or the PCC for Leicestershire. However, there have been official-level discussions that I am happy to advise the House about separately as required. The Government recently responded to written correspondence received from the PCC for Cleveland on 9 February. The correspondence sought clarification on the management and extension of misconduct hearings, which are matters for legally qualified chairs.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House that for many months, through many questions, I have been trying to find out why a police gross misconduct hearing in Cleveland, announced in August 2021, has still not started. A former chief constable, Mike Veale—a man dogged by controversy, to put it politely, since he vilified Sir Edward Heath several years ago—is due to appear at this hearing. A detailed report on the complaints against Mr Veale, still unpublished by the Independent Office for Police Conduct following a two-year inquiry, preceded the announcement of this hearing 18 months ago. Things often proceed far too slowly where police misconduct is concerned, but this must surely be a record. Are the Government absolutely content for this hearing to be indefinitely delayed, perhaps never to take place? Are the Government absolutely content that the legally qualified chair, who has sole charge of this hearing, should remain anonymous, even though, in the words of a Written Answer that I received on 22 February:
“There are no provisions in legislation which entitle legally qualified chairs of police misconduct hearings to remain anonymous”?
Are the Government absolutely content that an autonomous, anonymous chair should deny the public any reason why this hearing has not started?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I refer my noble friend to an answer I gave in Grand Committee on 23 February, when I said that
“the Cleveland PCC has no power over the legally qualified chair”—
except inasmuch as he appoints him or her—
“who must commence a hearing within 100 days of an officer being provided a notice referring them to proceedings, but may extend this period where they consider that it is in the interests of justice to do so.”—[Official Report, 23/2/23; col. GC 494.]
That is the case here and, as I have said many times from the Dispatch Box, I am afraid I really cannot go beyond that.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord’s Question, are the Government aware that the office of the Cleveland police and crime commissioner has delayed answering a series of relevant freedom of information questions on two separate occasions, claiming that it needs more time? Last Friday, on the last possible date allowed by the law, it refused point-blank to answer any of them. Does this course of action sound like it comes from an open, public-facing organisation or one perhaps covering its tracks?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am not familiar with the FoI requests that were put in, so I cannot really speak to them. I was very pleased to see that Cleveland’s most recent PEEL report, which was also published on Friday 17 March, indicates that very good progress has been made under the leadership of the chief constable, Mark Webster. The noble Lord will also be aware that the PCC, Steve Turner, attends the PPOGs. I commend them both on doing a decent job.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of a police authority. If police and crime commissioners have been so successful, as the Minister and the Government claim, why have so many of them let their police forces fall into special measures?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I think I have partially answered that. I am delighted to say that Cleveland is starting to make serious progress on the engagement front. I have also answered a number of questions from the noble Baroness about police authorities before. For reference, they consisted of 17 members, nine of whom were elected, drawn from a local authority and reflecting its political make-up. The remaining eight were called independent members and were appointed from the local community for fixed terms. The implication in this House was that they were in some ways more democratic than the police and crime panels and police and crime commissioners. I do not think that is the case.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that, despite his answers, there is considerable unhappiness about this whole story? I understand how difficult it is for him but, frankly, it will no longer wash that an individual who has behaved in a wholly unsatisfactory way, as far as one can see, is just not taken to task. Will he agree to look at this again and find an answer for those of us who have been pressing for many years to try to get one?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I completely accept the noble Lord’s unhappiness—and possibly share it, because I have to answer this question on a regular basis. Unfortunately, the Government have no powers to intervene, as he will be aware, in the misconduct process. There are reasons why it has been held up, but I cannot say them.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the Government have promised to make police and crime commissioners more accountable, because getting held to account only once every four years is not really enough. What exact measures will the Government put in place to make sure that they respond to the people for whom they are responsible?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness asks a good question. As she will be aware, we have passed secondary legislation to enact changes to the PCC voting system. This reform will clarify and simplify it and make it easier for the public to hold their PCCs accountable at the ballot box. We are increasing the transparency of PCCs by amending the specified information order so that PCCs are now required to publish additional information to allow the public to hold them to account, including their progress against the Government’s national priorities for policing, recent HMICFRS reports and additional complaints information. There are also recommendations to improve scrutiny, which I can go into. A lot has been done.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, month after month and year after year, Ministers stand at that Dispatch Box and give wholly unsatisfactory answers. There is deep concern, as my noble friend Lord Deben made plain a few moments ago, and as my noble friend Lord Lexden has made plain time after time. If the rules prevent my noble friend the Minister giving a satisfactory answer, one is tempted to quote Mr Bumble: if the law says that, the law is an ass. Will my noble friend try to do something so that, when he comes to the Dispatch Box next time, he can give a sensible and meaningful answer?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend finds it unsatisfactory. I think it would be unsatisfactory for me to stand here and make a comment that might prejudice a judicial inquiry. I am not going to do that.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and his persistence in trying to learn the lessons from this hugely unfortunate episode. Law and order go to the very heart of what a civilised society stands for. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will tomorrow deliver a report on the Metropolitan Police that will give the police force yet another good kicking. Does the Minister not agree that it is not enough to leave all these things up to police and crime commissioners, let alone the Mayor of London? The Government have to take a central role in dealing with what is an ongoing and deeply serious problem.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I agree up to a point. The Government are taking a central role, not least through the review into the dismissal process that I have talked about before. I have little doubt that that will become a topical subject within the next 24 hours. That will look into the composition of misconduct panels, including the impact of the role of legally qualified chairs; more broadly, it will look at things such as the appeals mechanism and the effectiveness of the performance system, including for officers who have failed vetting. That review was launched on 17 January and was said to take about four months to conclude. We are getting towards the end of that process, so there will be more to be said.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said he has no powers to intervene. He also said there is a judicial process in which he does not want to intervene. Can he give the House a date by which that judicial process will start?
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I will make what I hope is a helpful suggestion. Could the Minister not give a briefing to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and perhaps to the Leader of the Opposition on a privy counsellor basis? If there is some good reason, they could then reassure those who are understandably indignant about this delay.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am happy to reassure the House on that point. I am seeing my noble friend Lord Lexden this Wednesday. He chose not to mention it, but I will.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest having, together with the late Lord Newton of Braintree, presented the seven Nolan principles of conduct in public life to Parliament. Does my noble friend the Minister recognise that two of those principles, accountability and openness, are not evident in the responses he has been able to deliver so far? Can he please ensure that all holders of public office know that they have to be
“accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to scrutiny necessary to ensure this”?
On openness, they must
“act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I accept the question from my noble friend. Yes, they are expected to adhere to the Seven Principles of Public Life, as determined and published by the Nolan committee. The office of the PCC is also expected to ensure that the PCC is adhering to the Nolan principles. In each force area, the actions and decisions of PCCs are scrutinised by their police and crime panels. On the case of Leicestershire—which I suspect is at least partly informing my noble friend’s question—I am happy that the standards are now being met there. They should have been met before, but the Government—as we have said before from the Dispatch Box in the strongest possible terms—expect that PCCs appointing to senior positions in their offices follow the process clearly set out in legislation. I am very pleased to say that Leicestershire is now doing that.
Council of Europe: Death Penalty
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they remain (1) opposed to the use of the death penalty, and (2) committed to the United Kingdom’s membership of the Council of Europe.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, it is a long-standing policy of the UK Government to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle, and we have no plans to reintroduce it. The United Kingdom is committed to its membership of the Council of Europe, which remains an important forum for our human rights and foreign policy agenda.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful, as always, to the Minister for his Answer. Noble Lords will appreciate that I tabled this Question some weeks ago in direct response to comments by the Prime Minister’s appointee as deputy chair of the Conservative Party about the death penalty, but also because of consistent comments on and off the record by Justice and Home Affairs Secretaries at the other end of the Corridor. By contrast, the Minister is a strenuous advocate for rights, freedoms and the international rule of law. Is this contradiction at the heart of government sustainable, let alone helpful?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, what I can say to the noble Baroness is that when I speak from this Dispatch Box, I speak for the Government and I emphasise and stress what the Government’s policy is, and that will continue to be the case.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the European Convention on Human Rights is a core part of the Council of Europe—indeed, some would say the raison d’etre—yet there are persistent voices in the Conservative Party calling to leave the convention, fearing some blockage in the policy relating to boat people. Do the Government agree that if we were to leave, by design or inadvertence, that would in effect mean leaving the Council of Europe?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, during the Second World War and, indeed, just after it, Sir Winston Churchill was one of the key architects of the Council of Europe and that remains the case. I can do no better than to quote the current chief executive of the Government, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who said on 27 February that “the United Kingdom is a member of the European Convention on Human Rights and will remain a member of the ECHR”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, having a policy is one thing, but there is also a requirement to be a strong advocate. As the noble Lord knows, I questioned him last week about the situation in Saudi Arabia, a country that last year executed a huge number of people—81 in one day. Can he reassure me that on future occasions when someone’s life is under threat, not only he but the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will stand up for this policy and urge Saudi Arabia not to execute people?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I assured the noble Lord last week when we discussed the tragic execution of Mr al-Kheir, we remain absolutely vigilant in respect of imminent executions such as those that took place. This was a tragic event and totally against our policy. I assure the noble Lord of my good offices and indeed others across government in making the case that, as I said in answering the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the United Kingdom has opposed, still opposes and will continue to oppose the death penalty in all respects.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I accept the good faith of the Minister, and I try to avoid on these occasions autobiography in your Lordships’ House, but as Crown counsel successfully and defence counsel unsuccessfully, I have participated in cases where the accused would have hanged but for the abolition of the death penalty. Nothing in that experience ever persuaded me that capital punishment should be restored, which makes it all the more astonishing that his party should have appointed someone to a senior position who believes that it should.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I of course equally respect the noble Lord, and I listened very carefully to his question. I have quoted the Prime Minister, and let me assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has also articulated her view that the current sentencing is sufficient to deal with crimes of all different natures, including the most severe. She herself has voiced her opposition to the introduction of capital punishment.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, in view of the comments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has drawn attention, does the Minister agree that there is something deeply ironic about a society condemning the taking of a person’s life, and in order to demonstrate exactly how strongly it does so, doing exactly that through a judicial killing?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am not quite clear as to the premise of the right reverend Prelate’s question. However, I do agree with him that when we articulate policies from the Dispatch Box in your Lordships’ House or the other place, we should articulate what those views are and what the law is. Let me say once again for clarity that the Government have no plans to introduce capital punishment domestically, and we will continue to oppose the death penalty internationally.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned his responses as of last Thursday, when we discussed the killing of Hussein Abo al-Kheir. We know that Saudi Arabia resumed the death penalty in November 2022 and that it murdered 11 people in March alone through those means. We also know that it has restituted its law whereby you can be executed for drug smuggling and narcotics offences—which, in some terms, are not as serious as you might expect, even in a country like Saudi Arabia. How many times has he called in the Saudi ambassador since the death penalty was reinstated in November?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, if the noble Baroness was present last week, she will know that I recounted I think at least eight or nine occasions on which I have been in touch and had direct discussions with His Excellency the ambassador for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Indeed, on the evening before the sad execution of Mr al-Kheir, I was in touch with the Human Rights Commission of, the Foreign Minister of, and, indeed, the ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, given that the rights adumbrated in the ECHR are anticipated—predated, sometimes, by centuries—by the laws of this country, what does my noble friend the Minister fear would be the right we would lose if we were to abrogate the convention?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I think we have heard one of the points from the other side of the House. It is extremely important that the United Kingdom is a guardian of the rule of law internationally. We also make the case very strongly that as we ourselves have evolved, we hope that other countries have evolved. In 1965, I believe, we abolished the death penalty. We worked constructively with other countries towards achieving that aim. Of course, the conventions that we set up and create need to adapt and evolve, but the convention to stand against capital punishment and the death penalty is, I believe, the right one, and long may it continue.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I declare, as a possible conflict of interest, that I am a member of the Council of Europe and this Parliament’s delegation to Strasbourg. Last week, I was in Paris for a meeting of the migration committee. I am delighted to hear the noble Lord’s reassurance of a total commitment, but it does not feel like that from the point of view of the other parliamentarians I meet. Their comments about last year’s Nationality and Borders Act and our current Illegal Migration Bill suggest huge scepticism from them and the UNHCR about the commitment of this Parliament to the conventions of the Council of Europe. Can the Minister give me a little ammunition, since there are no Conservative Members on the migration committee? I am the only defender of British policy—can your Lordships believe that? Is there any way in which he can help us to rebut, qualify or put in a different perspective the current thinking, which is very radical, of the Council of Europe towards us?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Of course, I would be delighted to. First and foremost, in terms of an immediate response, I have already quoted my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I would be happy, as I always am, to meet with the Council of Europe and its members in advance of their next meeting to ensure that they are fully equipped with the lines they need about our defence of the ECHR and our membership of the Council of Europe.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is a member of the UN Human Rights Council. Does the Minister anticipate bringing these matters before the council? Why, in his view, do countries continue with the death penalty, and does it in any way act as a deterrent against the very acts these people are being murdered for in any case?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Viscount that we consistently bring up the issue of the death penalty. Indeed, as he may be aware, in the universal periodic review that takes place in respect of each country, including the United Kingdom, we look very carefully at what the issues are and which ones we should raise, and we hold countries accountable. Many countries with perhaps quite challenging human rights records aspire to be members of the Human Rights Council. When you are there, you need to stand up for its values and standards.
Medical Devices and Equipment
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Hacking
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions have been held between the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS Supply Chain, and healthcare manufacturers regarding the impact of costs pressures on the supply of medical devices and equipment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, we are back to medical matters. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the department and NHS Supply Chain hold regular discussions with industry. There is an established process for reviewing price increase requests, which is set out in the terms of agreement of contracts. Each request is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This Government are committed to working with healthcare manufacturers to secure value for money for taxpayers and support patients and care providers in accessing the products that they need.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I think I detect that the Government acknowledge the importance of the provision of healthcare products to both the NHS and its patients. I refer in particular to operated medical beds and pressure mattresses, going all the way down the line to such matters as catheters and colostomy equipment—I mention those because your Lordships may be more familiar with that area.
I have two questions. Do the Government recognise that providers of healthcare products, mostly fixed-price products, have faced and are facing colossal increased costs, to the point that there is a real prospect that some of them will no longer be able to provide their healthcare products to the National Health Service? Do the Government recognise the importance of providers of healthcare products to the National Health Service?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his important question and pay tribute to his expertise in such matters. This Government recognise the importance of the provision of healthcare products to the NHS and its patients. In February, the Government published their first ever medtech strategy. Supply conditions are proactively monitored and officials engage extensively with industry to identify threats to the supply of medical equipment. The department works closely with NHS England and the NHS to minimise the impact of potential supply disruptions on patient care. The department has agreed annual increases on Part IX drug tariff products used in primary care, and an exceptional price increase request mechanism exists.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, on 31 January, the Minister’s noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Markham, told me in a Written Answer that we still have 118 million items of PPE stored in the People’s Republic of China at a cost of £260,000 every single day. That is a massive cost to the NHS, both in opportunity cost and the cost to British taxpayers. The noble Lord said that the Government would act rapidly to end this. Can the Minister tell us whether we now have any items of PPE left in the People’s Republic of China and what the total cost to the British taxpayer has been?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the People’s Republic of China is not part of the Question and remit I have here, but I will certainly pass the noble Lord’s question on to my noble friend Lord Markham.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may be aware of research that we have carried out showing that many hospitals are using outdated equipment, including X-ray machines that are more than 20 years old. What are the Government doing to ensure that NHS England’s advice to replace equipment such as scanners and X-ray machines every 10 years is being followed? What are they doing to make sure that cost pressures do not become another reason to delay further the replacement of this essential equipment?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. As somebody who used to deal in such equipment, I totally agree with him that you should always have the latest, most up-to-date equipment. Twenty years sounds like an awfully long time in technological development terms, so I take on board exactly what the noble Lord says.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the Question talks about
“the impact of costs pressures on the supply of medical devices and equipment.”
Therefore, the fact that we are paying for the storage of PPE that cannot be used is relevant; a Question on this was answered some time ago. Would my noble friend the Minister be good enough to reply in writing and set out the current position of these astronomical costs?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend for that question. I hear it loud and clear and will feed it back to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Markham.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, one important set of healthcare products is the media which are used for embryo culture. They are widely used in in vitro fertilisation by different manufacturers, having been obtained commercially. Can the Government assure us that they are notified of the secret ingredients in these media? What control is made over those ingredients, which may have a detrimental effect, before they are used in human embryos?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very important point. I will certainly ensure that the department hears it, and I will feed back to him.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend will recall that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in this country was the leading regulatory agency for the approval of new medical devices, including 40% of the most significant such medical devices. What benefits for the authorisation of medical devices might stem from the announcement in the Budget last week of additional resources for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. The Government’s medtech strategy, published in February, will support medical device manufacturers by recognising the importance of domestic production to support resilience and identify practical support. The good news that was articulated in the Budget last week can only add to that.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, rising cost pressures affect not only the supply of medical devices and equipment; spiralling costs are also threatening the supply of drugs in the UK, particularly generic medicines. What assessment have the Government made of how many drug companies they expect to exit this market altogether due to lack of profitability? What assessment have they made of the impact on patient care and NHS finances if the NHS has to pay an increasing amount for a smaller range of drug options?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
When agreeing contracts with healthcare manufacturers that stipulate fixed pricing the manufacturers have full opportunity to account for the inflationary pressures of their tenders. NHS Supply Chain has established processes, where suppliers can apply for price increases due to exceptional circumstances. It has accepted price increases where they were justifiable, and it continues to consider such requests.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My noble friend spoke earlier about the need to replace equipment in hospitals with the latest, most up-to-date equipment. Can he assure the House that, if it is serviceable, the redundant equipment will be put to good use? I am thinking particularly of Ukraine, where hospitals and kit have been blown to bits. We could at least send them stuff that we consider to be surplus.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My noble friend raises a very good point. Notwithstanding wanting to have the very latest state-of-the-art equipment in our hospitals, the surplus could still be workable and could be used elsewhere in the world, including in Ukraine. I will feed that back.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, it is reliably estimated that, in 30 years, the cost of the NHS will match 100% of GDP in this country. Can the Minister say something about what long-term strategic plans are being undertaken given the eventuality of the NHS simply running out of money and the country running out of money at the same time?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. As it is outside the Question and the remit I have here, I cannot give her a robust enough answer, I fear, so I will write to her.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, surely at the heart of this Question—and it relates to China—is that what we learned during the pandemic is that we were overreliant on supplies from China. The Government say that they wish to encourage alternative sources of supply, including from UK companies. However, we hear from those companies that the cost pressure on them means that they cannot invest sufficiently to produce alternative sources of supply. What is the Government’s approach to ensuring that we are not dependent on China in the way that left us so exposed during the pandemic?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point. Unfortunately, we were far more reliant on China, not just in the NHS but elsewhere in our economy. However, contracts and framework agreements fixed prices to provide budgetary certainty for the NHS and to avoid the need for frequent price reviews or constant retendering, which are inefficient for the NHS and for suppliers. When I reflect on my business career, I know from that context that the NHS is a very good customer, providing security on payment for goods and services, working under equitable terms and conditions of contract, and being prepared to encourage the concerns of suppliers facing exceptional pressures. It is a very good customer.
Passports: Strike Action and Voter ID
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what assessment they have made of the effect of strike action in April on passport applications and (2) what steps they will take to ensure that those with delayed applications will not be prevented from voting in elections on 4 May.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Passport Office is working to manage the impact of the strike action. We have comprehensive contingency plans. There are currently no plans to change the published processing times for passports in response to the proposed strike action.
A passport is only one form of identification which is acceptable for voting purposes. The full list can be found on the government website. The public do not need a passport to be able to vote. This strike action should not have any impact on people being able to vote in May.
Lord Rennard (LD)
The current 10-week delay in passport applications is frustrating for travellers. The five-week strike will cause further problems. It will also reduce the number of people who have one of the specified forms of photo ID to let them vote if they have elections on 4 May. The uptake of local authority voter ID cards has been pathetic. During debates on the then Elections Bill, Ministers referred frequently to the Post Office’s ID requirements for collecting a parcel. Will the Government now consider allowing the forms of ID that are accepted by the Post Office, including bank cards or utility bills, to be used for voting, or are they really trying to suppress the vote?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord asked two questions. First, in relation to the Passport Office, the department remains confident that the 10-week service standard for the return of passports will continue to be met. As the Minister with superintendence of the Passport Office, I have been very proud of the work that it and its excellent staff have done in recovering from the massive surge in applications which followed the Covid pandemic. The Passport Office remains fully resourced, following a significant increase of more than 1,200 staff between April 2021 and last summer. Last week, 99.6% of standard UK passport applications were processed within 10 weeks. More than 2.2 million applications have been processed in 2023.
I turn to the issue in relation to voting. As I have already said, a passport is only one form of ID which is acceptable for voting purposes. Expired forms of identification will be accepted, as long as the photograph is a good enough likeness. We estimate that around 80% of the eligible voting population hold a valid UK passport. This increases to around 85% when those whose passport has recently expired are included. On the basis that such a high proportion of voters hold a valid or recently expired passport, we do not plan to change our processing times. As the noble Lord has observed, anyone eligible to vote who does not have an acceptable form of photographic identification can apply for a free voter authority certificate.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, we know that voter ID fraud among those who vote at polling stations is absolutely minimal. It is extremely likely that, even if people have photo ID, they will not remember to take it to the polling station when they go to vote. There will therefore be a considerable number of people who do not vote in elections if the Government stick to their requirement that everyone turns up at the polling station with photo ID. Will the Government therefore withdraw their photo ID requirement for people voting at polling stations?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid I simply do not agree with the noble Baroness. This Parliament has passed an Act to require people to present voter identification and that is what will happen.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
There is a simple failsafe. It is really important that people can vote and, having sent off their passport, they might not think that they will need it. But every time the Passport Office receives an application, it sends an email that says, “We’ve safely got your passport”. Attached to that email could be a little notification saying, “If you’re relying on this as your ID for voting, please make sure that you have one of these other forms”—or it could signpost them to the free voter certificate, which would kitchen-sink this so they can vote.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that suggestion. Great efforts are made to advertise the availability of the voter authority certificate. Anyone concerned that a document that they intend to use will not be available by polling day may also apply to appoint a proxy up to 5 pm on polling day itself—so considerable steps have been taken to address my noble friend’s point.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has come up with a very practical solution to this potential problem. Can the noble Lord undertake to the House and the noble Baroness that he will look at her suggestion and come up with a more considered answer?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can certainly indicate that careful consideration is given to these issues. As always, we will consider all the recommendations and advice given to this House, including from my noble friend.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, should we remind ourselves that photographic evidence has been required at polling stations in Northern Ireland for many years and that the system there has worked extremely well?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank my noble friend, who is of course correct that paper identification has been required at polling stations in Northern Ireland since it was introduced in 1985, and photo identification since 2003, when it was introduced by the last Labour Government. It has proven to be highly effective at stopping fraud and preventing the crime of stealing someone’s vote.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I will add to the last question and publicly commend the Passport Office—or certainly one unit within it, the international section—for providing an absolutely exemplary service. Would the Minister care to add to my positive remarks?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am incredibly grateful to the noble Viscount for his comment, which I will pass on. I am always very impressed by the Passport Office staff. Their work to turn around delivery times has been exemplary across the Civil Service, and it is most regrettable that the action taken by the PCS will imperil this.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this delay in passport applications will undoubtedly lead to some people not having the relevant voter ID available to them on the day in order to vote. Another uncertainty is being put in front of potential voters. The Minister has been saying that people can apply for local authority voter identification, so I will give him some figures to show how minimal that is. In my council area of Kirklees—I have relevant interests—there are an estimated 4,000 voters who will need voter ID from the local authority. There have been 278 applications to date, many of which have been returned for lack of a good-quality photo. What are the Government going to do to make sure that every voter who turns up on 4 May can cast their vote?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I believe that I have already answered that question a number of times in the course of proceedings in this House and I will not repeat it again.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that it is not only passports that are registered as a document of note for voting? Many documents other than passports are approved. Would he care to run through them?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank my noble friend; he is indeed correct. Some 20 forms of identity document would suffice including: a passport—needless to say—issued by the UK, any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, any British Overseas Territory, an EEA state or Commonwealth country; a national identity card issued by an EEA state; a driving licence; a blue badge; an older person’s or disabled person’s bus pass; an Oyster 60+ card funded by the Government of the United Kingdom; a Freedom Pass; a Scottish national entitlement card; a Welsh concessionary travel card for those aged 60 and over or disabled people; a senior, registered blind, blind person’s, war disablement, 60+ or half-fare SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland; or an identity card bearing a proof of age standard. I do not think I need to carry on.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, could the Minister say why the young person’s bus pass and railcard was not on there?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Plainly, that was an issue that the noble Lord should have raised—and no doubt did raise—during the debate on the Elections Bill. It is quite a long way from the topic of this Question, which is about the strikes by the PCS.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister, having gone through that extensive list, say whether the department has made any estimate of how many people do not have any of the forms of documentation that he listed?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Well, of course, elections fall within the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities rather than the Home Office, but I am delighted to make that inquiry and write to him, and deposit the answer in the Library of the House.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is the Minister aware of the different political culture in Northern Ireland, and the fact that in the 1983 general election there were clear justifications for the introduction of some form of ID? There has been no such justification in Great Britain. The returning officer for Northern Ireland said that, after the introduction, it took at least 10 years for turnout levels to return to their previous levels, as a result of the introduction of ID. The Minister read a list; as a canvasser, I would not be able to read out that list to everyone on the doorstep—but the Post Office list is a very good list and it would extend the right to vote to many more people.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I do not accept that there is no need for the voter identification provisions. In any event, as I say, those matters have been approved by the other place and by this House—so that, I am afraid, is that.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister what he is doing, what the Government think and what assessment they have made about postal votes, because they are not monitored in the same way and ID does not have to be produced in the same way? Voter fraud instances have been higher in postal votes than they ever have for people voting in person.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that this question, too, is an awfully long way from the Private Notice Question in relation to the action taken in the Passport Office. As to forms of identity for voting in person at polling stations, if the noble Baroness wishes to put a Question about postal voting, she can put it to the relevant Minister in DLUHC.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, like many in this House, I am registered to vote in two places. I have had no information from either local authority about the need for voter ID yet. It is only a number of weeks before the election; at what point are people going to be informed by local authorities of both the need for voter ID and the ability to apply for a local authority voting card?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord is perhaps fortunate in that I received notice last week, together with my council tax bill for the coming year. I understand that that is fairly wide practice.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
Is the Minister prepared to instruct those conducting elections to monitor those people who have been refused the right to vote, and publish those figures?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I say, that is not a Home Office issue, so I am afraid that the answer is no: I have not given that instruction. No doubt the noble Lord can make inquiries of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
European citizens are, I guess, allowed to vote in these circumstances, and they only have European documents. The Government may wish for these to be added to that already extensive list.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Yes, indeed; the noble Viscount is right. EU and EEA passports and identity cards are valid.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
The noble Lord asked me to write to him because my question was not apparently pertinent to the Question on the Order Paper. Could he confirm that he speaks for the Government?
Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill
Monday 20th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill 2022-23 View all Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 March 2023 - (17 Mar 2023)
Child Support (Enforcement) Bill
Monday 20th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 View all Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Powers of Attorney Bill
Monday 20th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Powers of Attorney Act 2023 View all Powers of Attorney Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill
Monday 20th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023 View all Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 March.
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill
Monday 20th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 View all Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (10 Mar 2023)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, it is with deep regret that the UK Government have been unable to secure legislative consent for this Bill from the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. We have also not been able to secure a legislative consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly, given the lack of a functioning Executive. This is disappointing, given that the same approach was followed in the Trade Act 2021, for which the Scottish and Welsh Governments did recommend consent.
The Government have sought to agree compromises with the devolved Administrations. However, despite the best efforts of officials and Ministers, we have not been able to reach an agreement with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. I remind noble Lords again that during the passage of the Bill and the deals it implements, the Government have undertaken extensive engagement with the devolved Administrations, including ministerial meetings, official-level meetings and meetings of ministerial fora, and there were 25 chief negotiator calls with the DAs regarding the Australia free trade agreement alone. In addition, as I have made clear in each debate on the Bill, I reaffirm the UK Government’s commitment to consult the devolved Administrations before exercising the concurrent power in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking through the Bill, which is a first for both the Minister and the country—our first trade deal signed following our exit from the European Union. The Minister’s enthusiasm for the Bill was always evident throughout its passage. We now have a trade arrangement with Australia and New Zealand. We will wait to see the overall and specific effects, particularly upon our agriculture sector. While the overall impact is predicted to be very limited, a factor caused by the huge distance between Australia and New Zealand and the UK, there were some specific concerns about certain Australian farming methods and the effect on small hill farmers in the UK. I suspect that these account largely for the failure to get agreement from the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
My thanks go again to the Minister and his team of advisers for their openness and, on this side, to Milton Brown, who again has shown good judgment in facilitating the progress of the Bill.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, it has been a pleasure to take my first Bill through your Lordships’ House. I thank noble Lords for the constructive approach that has been evident throughout the Bill’s passage. We have had robust discussions and debates on the Bill. Likewise, I have had the privilege in recent weeks of engaging with Peers outside the Chamber, and I have benefited from those conversations, which have been in-depth and valuable. The experience, diligence and practical knowledge of noble Lords have challenged and tested the strength of the Bill and its underlying trade deals. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this provides reassurance to the public on the quality of our democratic processes, our accountability and the constructive challenge function of your Lordships’ House. It remains for me only to give a few specific thanks to noble Lords and others before we complete our consideration of the Bill.
First, I thank the Opposition spokespersons, the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Purvis of Tweed, for the constructive way that they have continued to approach the scrutiny of the Bill—as well as the additional work outside in engaging with our various high commissioners, which I personally appreciated very much.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for the valuable conversations that we have shared on this legislation and her continued championing of our important agricultural sector. I hope that she has been reassured throughout the Bill’s passage through this House of the Government’s commitment to maintaining our high food standards and safeguarding measures for this sector and UK farmers within both deals. It was due to the scrutiny of my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we identified the minor drafting error in Clause 2(1)(a), which has subsequently been corrected.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley, whose knowledge, frankly, makes my job all the easier as he makes the points in my speech before I get the chance to do so. It is absolutely right that I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and all the members of the IAC for their considered input.
This has been very much a team effort. Behind the scenes, the extraordinary Bill team have put in an unbelievable amount of effort. My thanks go to: James Copeland, Thomas Bingham, Donald Selmani, Jack Collins, Alex Garcia-Pineiro and Catherine Ajani. I also thank my private secretary Sehar Shaheryar and other officials who make up my private office, led by Simon Moore.
Finally, I thank the parliamentary staff, the doorkeepers and the clerks for their professionalism and continued support and to your Lordships’ House.
The Bill provides a power to give effect to our procurement commitments within these agreements, improving three areas of our existing procurement legislation in the UK. We will see benefits to our public services and companies trading in these partner countries—ultimately, unlocking billions in government contracts in a more secure way than ever before.
In conclusion, the Bill will achieve the essence of our post-Brexit vision of Britain. Some noble Lords have questioned the presence of the Government’s trade agenda during the Bill’s passage. In response I say: here it is. These deals guarantee a global interconnectedness of trade deals, with the United Kingdom at the very heart of these new routes, meaning new opportunities for our businesses and citizens. This will result in new markets for our goods and services and new ways to travel and share our cultures. To our friends, trading partners, clients, suppliers, brothers and cousins in Australia and New Zealand, I say, “Hold tight! The UK is coming.” I reiterate my thanks one final time and, with that, I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Purvis, who is, unfortunately, unable to be here this afternoon. We thank the Minister for his comments, as well as his patience and expertise during the passage of this Bill. We thank the Bill team for their help and support, as well as the Labour Front Benches and Cross Benches. We also thank Elizabeth Plummer in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, without whose help I do not think that my noble friend Lord Purvis and I would have been where we are today. We support the passage of the Bill and thank the Minister for his help.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on steering his first Bill successfully through the House—my congratulations go too to the whole Bill team. I am grateful to him for the time he took at every stage to talk me through. He knows of my disappointment that the Scottish Government have withheld their consent, and that this is not the deal that the British farmers would have hoped for; but we live to fight another day and I look forward to future trade Bills coming through.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Kerr would have loved to be here. I am speaking on behalf of the Cross Benches. I was a member of the IAC until January; the Minister will remember that we had some animated conversations when he first came on the scene. He has kindly sent me a handwritten letter since then. I was sorry to miss the debate last week on agriculture but I welcome the assurances that he gave then. I am speaking now only to congratulate the Minister on taking this enabling Bill through to the end. I am glad that he has obviously enjoyed the exercise. He is not going to be one of those uncomfortable Ministers on the Front Bench, if I can put it that way.
I remind the Minister of one thing that we discussed: the need for HMG to develop a proper trade policy that explains to people what the UK stands for; that is what he was talking about just now. By this I do not mean a checklist but a framework for FTAs in which there is more mutual understanding, in advance, of the issues involved. This does not breach secrecy rules but helps the process of consultation with stakeholders—and there are many stakeholders.
We said in our report that the FTA was politically significant because it offered an insight into the Government’s vision for trade in the absence of a policy. Australia and New Zealand was a relatively easy start in this as we have so many common values and standards with them, but they are not typical of the CPTPP, which is coming quite soon and offers much wider challenges. All I ask is that the Minister and the department continue the dialogue with the IAC that was already started with the previous Secretary of State; as the Minister knows, it is an ongoing process, and perhaps he could confirm that in his reply.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I offer my congratulations to the Minister for skilfully conducting the debates on this important Bill, which I think will lead to much greater things in our future. I want to put before him three issues, almost housekeeping issues, that have arisen during the handling of the legislation, one of which has just been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
I declare an interest as a member of the International Agreements Committee, where the issue of trade policy and how specific or general it should be has been a matter of lively discussion. That is of course relevant to everything that we have been talking about.
I ask the Minister to keep the three points that I want to comment on in mind when we enter into future discussions on these sorts of areas in FTAs, of which there are going to be plenty more. First, the CRaG system—the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—has come under a bit of strain, and the question has arisen as to whether, when the other place resolves that something should not be ratified, the 21 days that then follow are enough to get the appropriate debates organised, or whether in fact the Government are not obliged to have a debate and maybe it does not fit into parliamentary time and the net effect can be that there is no debate at all. Perhaps that is an area that needs looking at again.
Secondly, the whole of the CRaG system depends on the assiduity, energy and powers of the committees. The resources on the clerical and research side of many committees, including all the ones that I have served on for 30 years, have been second to none, and have been particularly superb here in the House of Lords itself—but are they enough, given the size and number of the treaties that are coming through? We are not even talking about the EU treaties that are handled by the International Trade Committee; we are talking about thousands and thousands of treaties and agreements, let alone instruments, pouring through day by day. Today’s giant Executive generates a continuous flow, a cascade, of these things. Do the committees have the resources and underpinning that committees in similar parliamentary systems to ours, here in Europe and elsewhere, seem to have? Should there have been harder thinking about whether, in a modern society with a modern Parliament trying to hold the Executive to account, the resources of committees are the key—the physical resources, clerical resources, research resources and back-up, and the power to summon and so on. These are all matters of lively discussion that have arisen in this area.
My third point is a bit of a puzzle, but we are going to hear a lot more about it: the question of consent from the devolved Administrations. I need to have one thing clarified for me. I thought foreign policy was a reserved matter under the devolution legislation that we passed through both Houses. When the Holyrood Parliament refuses consent, I want to know under what powers it is doing that. As the Minister has indicated, that does not actually stop a Bill proceeding and being enacted, but it is a rather curious situation when, if the devolved Administrations have views on this, they can just sit there and not provide consent. Is it because they think Scotland should have some separate relationship with Australia and New Zealand—I cannot believe that is the case—or is it simply some inner procedural matter where they do not feel there has been adequate consultation? Either way, it is a very uncomfortable situation to encounter. My noble friend has handled it excellently, but these things sit there and require some hard thought if future Bills of this kind, of which there will be many, can be conducted in a reasonable way where Parliament feels that it really is getting a grip on what is happening.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly appreciate noble Lords’ comments. I think I was so keen to get this Bill through that I slightly jumped the gun. I apologise to those noble Lords who were waiting to speak. I greatly appreciate the personal comments towards my own enthusiasm. I have hugely enjoyed the process of working with so many noble Lords in the first of what I hope will be a series of very exciting, exhilarating and profitable trade deals for the whole of the UK.
I have always been very specific, as have the Government, that this is a journey. We are very keen to hear how we can engage better. It is absolutely in the interests of the Government and these trade deals that there is a broad consensus around their power and effect to elevate our economy to new heights; otherwise, we will not be able to broadcast the ramifications and specifics of the trade deals to the country and people will not take advantage of them. Personally, I am continuing to engage at all possible points.
I am delighted to answer a few of the questions. In terms of the committee resourcing, I will certainly take that away. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for raising that. The IAC under the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has done a very good job. A number of noble Lords have spoken to that today and during the debate. It is certainly worth making sure we have the resources in this House to ensure we are scrutinising according to the appropriate CRaG process.
The noble Lord touched on the consent issues. They have clearly been an important feature of the debates around these trade deals. It does not necessarily look like we have resolved them for future trade deals. However, as the noble Lord rightly said, these are reserved powers. If you consult your Walter Bagehot, as I did over the weekend, he makes it very clear and is absolutely right that the Executive should be making treaties and be given the freedom of rein to implement them across the entire United Kingdom.
Having said that, we have made huge efforts to consult and engage with the devolved nations. I personally made extra efforts, which I would not describe as effort at all but part of a necessary process of good governance and communication, to ensure that devolved nations felt that they had a way in to this process. It is absolutely confirmed that our negotiators spend a great deal of time with officials from all parts of the United Kingdom to make sure that their views are fed in. This reflects on the sort of trade we are trying to do in terms of the specific industries of these nations. We are one United Kingdom, and our power in negotiating global trade deals comes from that fact. It would be a great mistake to try to abrogate that for any reason. Having said that, consultation and communication are paramount to us, and I personally commit to them.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Will my noble friend confirm that the Bill is about incorporating into domestic legislation the procurement provisions and chapters of the treaty? Although treaty making may be a reserved power, the implementation of the procurement-related legislation reflects directly on devolved matters. That is why consent should have been provided by the devolved Administrations.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that comment. I do not believe that is necessarily the case, in the sense that this is a procurement Bill relating to a trade deal, so it is right that concurrent powers can be initiated. I believe that is the case. That is certainly how we have operated on the premise of this Bill.
We wanted to gain consent because that is good practice, but, as I say, we focused on consultation and communication, which has achieved the same goal. The whole point of this Bill and the trade deal it underpins is that it will lead to greater trade, more commerce and economic activity and greater wealth creation for the entire UK, which we should celebrate.
If I may come to a conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their extremely helpful scrutiny. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned. It proves the power and point of this Chamber. Any of the body politic who discuss significant revision of the powers of this Chamber should think very carefully about the actions taken on this Bill. Through the scrutiny of this House and the participation of individual Members, we have been able to draft a more effective Bill and draft it correctly, for which I am extremely grateful. I am very excited about the opportunities that the Australia and New Zealand trade deal will give us, our citizens and this nation. With that, I beg to move.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 20th 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-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee - (20 Mar 2023)
“Disposal of landIn section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 (disposal of land by principal councils), after subsection (2B) insert—“(2C) Police and crime commissioners and the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime are to be treated as principal councils for the purposes of this section.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to confer a power on police and crime commissioners and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to dispose of land held by them in any manner they wish. This power is subject to the requirement of Secretary of State consent if the disposal is made for less than best consideration.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, government Amendment 165 and the consequential Amendments 508 and 509 seek to give police and crime commissioners, including mayors who exercise these functions, and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime the same powers to dispose of surplus land as local authorities.
The Government’s general principle is that public bodies should dispose of surplus land at the best possible price reasonably obtainable. However, we recognise that selling land at less than best consideration can sometimes deliver wider public benefits, which is why there is a long-standing framework under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 for enabling local authorities to dispose of their land for less than best consideration. Under this framework, the Secretary of State’s consent is required, but there is a general direction granting consent if the undervalue is below £2 million.
Prior to 2011 and the creation of police and crime commissioners, police authorities were covered by Section 123, but that is no longer the case. While police and crime commissioners now have broad powers to dispose of land as they see fit, there is no specific provision relating to disposal at less than best consideration. This perceived gap in police bodies’ powers was raised in the other place, and I know that this matter concerns the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Having now explored the issue further with the Home Office, the Government agree that police and crime commissioners should have the same disposal powers as local authorities. Therefore, this amendment extends the scope of Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to cover these elected police bodies.
These amendments will give police and crime commissioners greater certainty that they can dispose of land at less than best consideration where doing so will deliver wider public benefits. It will further empower police and crime commissioners to act in the interests of their local communities. The associated consent framework—with consent to be given by the Home Secretary in the case of police and crime commissioners —will increase transparency and public accountability.
For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that these amendments are welcome and that noble Lords will support them.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the government amendment, which concedes a principle of public bodies—the police—being able to use less than best consideration for land no longer needed. I am unashamedly seeking to extend that, as a result of the MP for Twickenham, my honourable friend Munira Wilson, introducing in the other place the idea of enabling public bodies to dispose of land for less than best consideration. That was already available in a limited form but the idea here is that it is out of date because of the change in land valuations—that is what the Minister said.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has added her name. She regrets that she is unable to be in her place today; I wish to make some points that undoubtedly she would have contributed had she been here.
As already indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the Government’s tabled Amendment 165 is very welcome. The review of Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, and the correction of the omission of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—and of police and crime commissioners generally—are necessary and positive steps. However, there remain ways in which the general disposal consent 2003 could be improved to better allow public bodies to dispose of assets for less than market value for social, economic or environmental benefit. We believe that such measures would be very much in line with the Bill’s desired outcome: levelling up communities across the country.
Noble Lords will be well aware of the significant variation in land value across the nation’s regions. The introduction of a percentage value discount would help ensure that local authorities, no matter where they are in the country, could offer the same level of discretion when selling sites for community good. I hope that the Minister will therefore accept the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for an adjacent percentage value to take into account varying land prices in different regions.
I also echo calls for the Minister to confirm today that the Government commit to launching a consultation on a new directive to update the current consent order on the disposal of public land. I am aware that Munira Wilson MP, who has been active in these matters in the other place, has received a letter from the new Housing and Planning Minister in which Mrs Maclean confirmed that the Government will take forward a consultation on a new direction with higher thresholds after the passage of the Bill. Is the Minister able to reiterate this commitment on the Floor of the House?
I also hope the Minister will accept the call by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for a new disposal consent order increasing the cash value amount in line with inflation in land prices. In her letter to Munira Wilson MP, the Housing and Planning Minister recognised that the current threshold of £2 million was provided in 2003 and that land values have increased over the last two decades. Amendment 174 would increase the cash value amount that public authorities can give a discount on to £3 million. It should be noted that this is in fact a conservative estimate of the inflation in land prices over the past 20 years.
To conclude, I repeat my welcome for the government Amendment 165 and urge the Minister to reiterate the Government’s commitment to consult on a new directive, create such a directive and accept Amendment 174’s provisions for an adjacent percentage value. I hope that we can continue in this spirit of co-operation truly to level up our country.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 312A in this group, which would insert a new clause with the heading:
“Duty to optimise the use of public land”.
As this implies, the amendment attempts to ensure that the precious asset of land owned by public bodies is put to “optimal use”. The amendment tries to do two things. First, it would place a duty on local authorities to have a land use management plan for sites in their ownership to ensure that developments are brought forward for the public good. Secondly, since the duty to optimise the use of public land would very often be exercised by disposal of the land to others, the amendment also seeks to define the meaning of the phrase “best consideration reasonably obtainable”, which governs sale of publicly owned land at present.
Earlier amendments in this group would extend the current disposal regime to cover police and crime commissioners, the NHS, importantly, and all other public bodies. This amendment seeks to resolve long-standing complexities and arguments over the treatment of landholdings by public bodies. I pay tribute to the land economist Stephen Hill, who has studied this question for many years, for his preparation of the amendment. He has been aided by Keith Jenkins, the property lawyer, alongside distinguished real estate experts, academics and leading practitioners who all have my thanks for their work on this subject.
An essential feature of the levelling-up agenda is the need to improve the built environment to create better places to live and work. Securing the land for improved conditions—for affordable homes, green spaces, local amenities, et cetera—is the key to this. The amendment’s first objective, therefore, is simply to bring more public land into play. It would do so by requiring local authorities to prepare a land use management plan, demonstrating how use of their land will be optimised.
This approach was advocated by your Lordships’ Land Use in England Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington. Several local authorities are showing the way with land use plans. For example, the West Midlands Combined Authority has set out what is expected of public landowners; its public land charter requires those landowners to
“apply a consistent, joined-up approach to best consideration”
that aims to achieve “sustainable long-term” value for their land. Amendment 312A would spread this good practice everywhere.
However, securing the best economic, social and environmental uses when public land is sold has been constantly thwarted by public bodies’ acceptance of a higher price offered for the land by other bidders for what is often a less than optimal use. We all have stories of hard-pressed providers of public services understandably wanting to secure as much hard cash as they can from disposing of their land assets, even though doing so conflicts with efforts to improve the quality of life for local citizens.
I will use NHS land to illustrate this point. I have been involved in negotiations to acquire a redundant hospital building for an extra care housing development for older people. This use of the old building and surrounding land would lead to substantial annual savings for the NHS and care services, keeping people out of hospital and residential care as well as reducing loneliness and care needs. But the NHS trust was adamant that the sale must be to the highest bidder— in this case, a developer of luxury flats for overseas buyers—irrespective of the benefits to the NHS and care services that our extra care housing project would achieve. Very often, the reason cited by the public body for taking this line is that there is an obligation on it to secure the highest price, which gets equated with the “best consideration reasonably obtainable”. This is likely to mean the land is valued so highly that it prohibits a development that would achieve important social objectives.
Amendment 312A addresses this issue by creating the duty to go for the optimal use of the land, not the highest price offered, defining “optimal use” and interpreting “best consideration” by reference to constraints on the use of the land from predetermined local and national requirements. It spells out that this means fulfilling four imperatives: first, the requirements of the local development plan and the neighbourhood plan, if there is one; secondly, any national development management policies that will follow from the Bill; thirdly, the environmental principles in the Environment Act 2021; and fourthly, any other objectives or requirements determined by the Secretary of State.
In other words, securing the optimal use of publicly owned land must simply but definitively accord with national and local government requirements. The value of the land is thereby constrained and moderated by the need to comply with these legislative and administrative requirements. In this way, the value of the land is captured by the planning system for economic, social and environmental uses.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 312A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I declare my interest as a patron of the Community Land Trust Network, and a vice-president of the LGA. I apologise for not being present at Second Reading.
As always the noble Lord, Lord Best, has fully set out the rationale behind this amendment, which is quite complex. He gave an example of a redundant hospital which could have been used for extra care. When considering disposing of land they own, local authorities and other bodies feel that they have to get the best price possible. This often means that local communities are cut out of the equation, even when they may have excellent plans for a site or building. The inclusion of this proposed new clause introduces the duty to optimise the use of public land, which is quite different from getting best value or best consideration.
Often, local community land trusts are formed specifically to provide housing in areas which are either unviable for developers or on small and difficult sites. The local community has, however, identified a need for housing that may be of mixed type and tenure. For example, there may be young families wishing to stay in the area and, equally, there may be older people wishing to downsize but there is nothing of the right size in the area; it could also be for single young people wishing for a space of their own. The price of land is expensive and local authorities are obliged to get best value, which means going with the highest bidder, although this may not always meet the needs of the community. If local authorities are permitted to make the optimal use of public land, this opens up the availability of land for communities to have the facilities and homes that they need. I will try to explain this by giving an example. If a council has policies in certain areas—such as increasing social housing and achieving net zero—the council could then say, “How much would it cost somebody to develop homes on this site to achieve net-zero standards? What would the homes sell for or what would the rent be?” If this cost is deducted from the value of the land, you arrive at the correct valuation that will achieve the optimal use for the site.
It may be that a community is looking not for homes but to enter into a community shop run by volunteers. Both small rural shops and pubs have closed at an alarming rate over recent years; communities are now discovering what a valuable asset they have lost in terms of shopping at a convenient local venue and a venue where they could meet for a coffee and a chat. Perhaps a small local school has stood empty for some time, and it could be attractive to a developer. At the same time, it could be the saviour of the community in bringing residents together to create a much-needed facility for use by all ages. Levelling up is surely about the examples that I and others have given.
This is a complex subject but one that the Government are aware of. The Secretary of State received a letter in December 2021 on it and there has been subsequent correspondence with DLUHC. There were over 34 signatories to the original letter and the amendment is supported by various luminaries of the planning and real estate profession, including Yolande Barnes, professor of real estate at UCL, and various chairs and former chairs of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, including members and fellows.
The credentials of what is proposed have strong foundations. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has made a strong and lucid case for this amendment, which will make a real difference to the way in which local authorities, mayoral development corporations, Homes England and others approach the issue of best consideration for land, which should be a great asset to all communities. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Best, and other speakers on this group of amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and to join her in commending the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his expert collaborators on tackling a huge issue for communities up and down the land, but particularly for some of our most disadvantaged communities. It is important that we put this in the context of where we are now. Since the late 1970s, about half of all public land— 2 million hectares in total—has been sold from public to largely private hands. That means that local government has 40% less landholding than it did four decades ago; the NHS estate is down by 70%.
What we have seen, as we have heard from other speakers in this group, is not just a loss of land—people might or might not have ideological views about that—but a loss of capacity, facilities, access for local people, and the simple destruction of what had been a public resource. I think of one of these that I visited a few years ago on the Isle of Wight, a particularly tragic tale. The Frank James Hospital had been donated as a charity—a beautiful, big piece of land. It was a public facility that over decades—the best part of a century—the public had raised money for and put money into, but was sold 20 years ago to a developer and is still sitting there rotting.
Closer to us here, some noble Lords may know of Caxton Hall, which was a huge centre of historical interest and a place to hold public meetings in the vicinity of Westminster, at one point fairly affordably—something that anyone who has tried to organise one of those will know is a very rare breed indeed these days. Now it is, of course, private flats.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, has hit on something really important here, and I offer to do what I can to work with him if he wishes to take this forward into the next stage of the Bill. We have lost space for political campaigning. We have lost space particularly for our young people—those public spaces were often where young people gathered and where they were not surveilled, overseen, and expected to spend money; they were just a public space for young people to gather. So much of that has been lost. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said through the ventriloquism of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, this is very much a levelling-up issue. When you go to the poorer communities around our country, the public spaces have been sold off, but they also do not have even private spaces that you could rent because there is not enough money to support that kind of private space. This is a crucial issue to pick up in the Bill.
I will briefly comment on the Government’s Amendment 165, which broadly concerns the principle of choosing to dispose of land for “less than best” consideration. It is an excellent idea. The example that comes to mind is of a police and crime commissioner deciding to give at very low cost, perhaps even at peppercorn cost, a piece of land that might be used to build a youth centre on—that facility that we have lost so terribly in most parts of the country. That would clearly be a very good thing for a police and crime commissioner to do, directly serving their mandate.
What worries me a little about this is the Secretary of State consent element, which is just one more centralisation. I wonder whether there should not be a range of local and regional bodies having an input, rather than it coming down to Westminster. None the less, I applaud some degree of progress.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on a number of important amendments. It is, of course, essential that these new combined county authorities and constituent local authorities should be able to use land in their ownership and negotiate with partners to use land resources to create facilities, regenerate their areas, and make best use of the scarce land resources we have. The other reason this is so important is that making best use of these brownfield and previously developed sites affords the ability to make environmental protections to those parts of the country where we do not wish to see development. That is another reason for doing this. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, also takes into consideration the fact that there may be attempts to frustrate development. That certainly struck a chord with me, as the saga of the development of my town to the west of the A1(M) has dragged on for over 27 years without resolution—but that is enough about my personal pain.
I welcome the Government’s amendment on the issue of there being no specific provision relating to disposal below value. This is a big issue for local authorities whenever we are looking at these things. I think there is a degree of misunderstanding about it in local authorities, where a lot of arguments go on between the legal side and the policy side about how the power of environmental, social and economic improvement works, in conjunction with the audit side of having to achieve best consideration. I hope that these amendments will help to resolve some of these issues. The ability to empower PCCs to include considerations other than monetary value alongside local authorities is welcome, although I will come on to some of the issues around that in a moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, rightly pointed to the very steep price rises and the 160% inflation that is currently linked to valuations. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, channelled through the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the assets available to more deprived communities and what we do about making sure that we do not exacerbate that rather than using the powers of the Bill to level up. Using the power of land to provide preventive facilities—as in the example the noble Lord, Lord Best, used—which will do long-term good for the community and potentially save long-term revenue funding for the public bodies concerned is a really important way forward for determining how the value of land is determined in the first place. If it is going to provide facilities for that community and save revenue for the public body in the long term, surely that ought to be one of the considerations we can take into account.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester highlighted the outdated nature of the figures currently used. This has been one of the common themes of the data used that we have highlighted throughout the consideration of the Bill. We must get up-to-date data here, otherwise we will end up giving ourselves problems that we should not need to have.
Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, he made a very clear exposition of why the need to be able to make best use of public land—and therefore improve the built environment—is crucial to levelling up, and how the use of public land charters could help. It was interesting to hear that the work of the Select Committee had looked at that closely and determined it.
We cannot blame hard-pressed public bodies, which are so desperate for cash, for sometimes having to go for the option that will give them the most funding when looking at valuations on their land. Of course, the long-term solution to that is to fund public bodies properly in the first place—they would then not have to make those tough decisions—but we are where we are with that.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for having participated in this debate. A lot of interesting subjects have come up, some of which will be discussed in greater depth as we go through the Bill.
Amendment 174 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to give NHS bodies and police and crime commissioners the same powers as local authorities to dispose of surplus land. Government Amendment 165 already addresses this issue in relation to police and crime commissioners, but NHS bodies are accountable to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and there is a separate disposal regime in place for NHS land that enables disposal at “less than best” consideration where it brings public benefits. We do not therefore consider it necessary for those bodies to be included in Section 123 of the Local Government Act. Equally, general disposal consent is granted by way of a direction issued by the Secretary of State. As such, primary legislation is not required to amend it.
On what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, might have wished to say, as enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I believe that it is broadly in line with what the Government are trying to achieve. In fact, having listened to all the contributions, I think that we all share the same objectives; the Government just do not believe that we need to legislate quite so much in order to achieve them. So, although I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, for the reasons given above we do not consider that any further changes beyond government Amendment 165 are necessary.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for tabling Amendment 312A and for setting out the rationale behind it. It proposes that local authorities, mayoral development corporations and Homes England should be subject to a new optimal use duty when disposing of their land. We all want to see public land disposed of by these bodies being used to support long-term improvements to the economic, social and environmental well-being of an area. However, we are not convinced that this new duty is necessary to achieve this.
As the amendment recognises, local authorities are currently subject to Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, which governs their disposal of land. Under the Section 123 framework, there is already a general consent which enables local authorities to dispose of land below less than best consideration when it supports the economic, social and environmental well-being of an area. Many local authorities already use the disposal of their land as an important lever to shape and improve places for the benefit of the communities, as the noble Lord acknowledged. We are not convinced that local authorities need these new duties on them to do this. As the noble Lord said, we want the planning system, through local plans, to identify the best use for a particular piece of land. Part 3 of the Bill sets out our proposals to reform local plans to achieve this. We do not think that a separate duty on local authorities is needed. In addition, it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to impose objectives and requirements on a local authority’s land strategy. That should be a matter for the local authority to decide.
Similarly, mayoral development corporations are specifically designated to regenerate areas using land assembly, particularly to shape and drive forward development to maximise opportunities for the public good. Where appropriate, mayoral development corporations can dispose of land at less than best consideration that can reasonably be obtained with the consent of the mayor, as set out in Section 209 of the Localism Act 2011.
Supporting the creation, regeneration or development of communities is enshrined in Homes England’s statutory objectives, and it is proactively taking action through its land programmes. Homes England is already subject to a formal general consent, granted under Section 10 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, to dispose of land for less than best consideration from the Government. This provides them with the statutory powers to dispose of land at less than best value under the criteria set out in the consent. The criteria include meeting value for money requirements and the undervalue being for the purposes of delivering public policy requirements. More legislation to achieve the noble Lord’s aims is not therefore needed, but I appreciate the underlying objectives behind the tabling of this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned indexation and the rising inflation problems with land values. We recognise that the threshold for the general consent is out of date, given the rise in land values since it was set in 2003. Following Royal Assent, we intend to consult on increasing the threshold. I think this was the consultation the noble Lord referred to, and which the Minister in the other place committed to, so that best consideration will be increased from £2 million.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about local help for communities. She is probably aware that the £150 million community ownership fund is being used to help communities across the UK value ownership of assets at risk of closure and that it is available until March 2025. On a personal note, I am delighted that through this route, in Pembrokeshire we have just brought into community ownership the local hardware store, Havards, in Newport. I hope that with that reassurance, and the knowledge that Part 3 of the Bill will significantly reform the basis for formulating local plans and hopefully reduce the time it takes to produce a local plan, noble Lords will not need to move their amendments.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Long-term empty dwellings: England - estimatesThe Secretary of State must publish an annual estimate of the number of long-term empty dwellings in England.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that the Secretary of State must publish an annual estimate of how many long-term empty dwellings exist.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments is important as it directly relates to one of the housing missions. This mission states that more first-time homebuyers will be created in all areas and the number of non-decent rented homes will be reduced by 50%. I agree that good quality housing is the cornerstone of levelling up.
We are in a severe housing crisis, with a lack of supply of affordable homes for young people and little opportunity for families to get on to the property ladder. We therefore must make the best use we can of the properties we already have and maximise opportunities for everybody in every part of the country. There are large numbers of long-term empty houses. The Bill as it stands will not give local authorities sufficient tools to start to get a grip on the situation, so despite the Government saying they want to act, this is a missed opportunity. We have tabled amendments on both long-term empty dwellings and short-term empty lets to see what we can do to help the situation.
My Amendment 166 asks the Secretary of State to publish an annual estimate of exactly how many long-term empty dwellings exist. If we are serious about tackling the issue, we need fully to understand the extent of the problem and which areas are particularly affected.
There are a number of other amendments in my name, and in the names of my noble friends Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Blunkett. My noble friend Lady Taylor has tabled an amendment to increase the maximum premium chargeable on second homes from 100% to 300%. This is a probing amendment to look at where the figure should be set.
My Amendment 171 would allow the Secretary of State to give CCAs the power to restrict short-term holiday lets, and my Amendment 442 probes the question whether local authorities may request that the Secretary of State limit the number of short-term lets in their area. My noble friend Lord Blunkett’s Amendment 172A would ensure that:
“No change in existing council tax levy can be introduced without an independent economic evaluation”.
Clearly, there are complexities relating to second and unused homes. We believe that local authorities need more flexibility over council tax premiums. Surely, it must be for local authorities to decide whether or not they will charge premiums and how much these should be, depending on their local circumstances. This has been a difficult issue for local government, particularly in coastal and rural areas such as Cumbria, where I live. Locals are often priced out of the market as houses are increasingly being turned over to Airbnb or continue to be marketed as second homes. This is putting even more pressure on the housing situation. Communities can be completely hollowed out when this happens. There are villages near where I live in which the majority of houses are second homes or holiday lets. This hollows out local services and infrastructure. We lose bus services, the local school, shops and pubs, all of which are threatened when the number of people living permanently in the community diminishes.
We believe that this Bill is an opportunity to create some innovative solutions, both through the financial regime and the planning system. At the same time, we need to be aware of any unintended consequences. Loopholes exist through which properties can be pushed into the business rates category, thereby avoiding council tax. This happens too often, and we need to ensure that these loopholes are closed.
My Amendment 445 would allow regulations to be introduced to license short-term rental properties. The Labour Party believes that one way to tackle the challenge of second homes in coastal and rural areas is to introduce a licensing system that identifies genuine holiday lets, as opposed to second homes whose owners leave properties empty while pretending to rent them out to holidaymakers.
The Labour Government in Wales are planning to introduce a similar scheme, which would also allow councils to set a limit on the number of second homes. I ask the Minister whether the Government will take account of what is happening in Wales and use it to inform decision-making in England.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 294, in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, would oblige the Secretary of State to make short-term rental properties a distinct use class for planning purposes. The amendment is supported by the Local Government Association, of which I am, exceptionally, not a vice-president, and is based on changes made to secondary legislation in Wales in 2022.
A common theme running through all the amendments is the promotion of the country’s housing stock as a main home, either by raising the council tax on second homes or by using the planning system to control short-term lets. The planning system is not just about whether or not a piece of land is to be developed; it is about the use to which it is then put. For example, you need planning permission to convert a block of flats into a hotel. These use classes have been used to control changes that may be undesirable, and in a few cases they have been relaxed to promote changes between uses.
The Government have clearly recognised that we have now reached the stage where some form of control is needed if we are to maintain a proper balance between those who need permanent accommodation for rent and those who are making short-term visits. Clause 210, mentioned by the noble Baroness, introduced by the Government on Report and headed “Registration of short-term rental properties”, is a very useful step which I welcome. I also welcome the statements made about it in another place by Lucy Frazer, the previous Housing Minister. It proposes a new registration scheme for short-term lets, but this will not happen for some time, as consultation on the exact design of the scheme will not start until later this year, with decisions and actions later.
A registration scheme is a good first step but we need to build on this, as proposed in my amendment, and see much stronger controls. We need to do that if the planning system is to determine local priorities. We also need to make faster progress; only then will we see a better balance of housing options which will help families and young people who simply cannot find a place to live in some rural areas but also in London. Were she still able to attend, I am sure my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes would be speaking strongly in favour of this amendment.
A balance is important. Short-term lets can provide a useful boost to the local economy by promoting tourism where commercial accommodation is in short supply or very expensive, and they can be a useful source of income for those who do not need their homes all the time—for example, if they are away on holiday. However, we need a balance between second and first homes. My amendment provides a means of meeting that balance.
The Government’s legislation needs to go further by introducing a new use class for short-term rental properties, which, in turn, should be a precondition for the registration of such properties. We may not need to regulate short-term lets across the board, but making them a separate use class, as proposed in the amendment, allows full planning control in places such as seaside towns and the area just mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, where the growth in short-term letting has become a particular issue, or here in London, where there is pressure on the rental market.
There was a 1,000% increase in homes listed for short-term lets nationally between 2015 and 2021. That is 148,000 homes that could otherwise house local families that are available on Airbnb-style lets. In Cornwall, short-term listings grew 661% in the five years to September 2021. The county has roughly 15,000 families on social housing waiting lists and the same number of properties being marketed as housing lets. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, may mention his county, where short-term lets appear to be worsening an existing housing crisis, with nearly 4,000 homes taken out of the private rented sector and 11,000 added to short-term listings since 2016.
Currently, local authorities outside London have no legal means of preventing this loss of private rented housing to short-term lets. Several cases have come to light of people in rented housing in rural areas being evicted so that the property can be let on a short-term basis. In this context, it is worth mentioning the position in London as it shows a way forward. The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 —I declare an interest as I was on the GLC at the time—discouraged short-term lets by saying that the use of residential premises for temporary sleeping accommodation for fewer than 90 consecutive nights in London was a change of use, for which planning permission was required, so London residents face a possible fine of up to £20,000 for each offence of failing to secure planning permission. That position was basically confirmed in the Deregulation Act 2015. I see some advantage in simply extending this London provision to the rest of the country.
Finally, there are issues here that go beyond my noble friend’s department. Holiday lets get mortgage interest relief; residential tenancies do not. Holiday lets have no minimum energy and safety standards, and they qualify for business rates and small business rate relief. We need a cross-government approach to get a coherent and better-balanced policy on this important matter. Of course, I hope my noble friend will feel able to accept my amendment. If she cannot go that far—and I see from her body language that that may not be possible—will she commit to consulting soon on building on Clause 210, with a view to getting that better balance between the use of scarce housing stock in areas under pressure and to helping families for whom private renting is the only option?
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I will address the four amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley and comment on some of the others. We have already heard numerous examples describing why we need to address the issues around empty homes, second homes and properties available for short-term rent. As noble Lords are aware, some parts of the United Kingdom have already introduced measures to tackle some of them; for example, certification of tourist accommodation in Northern Ireland and licensing schemes for short-term lets in Scotland and Wales. Sadly, at the moment, England is being left behind.
I am pleased that at long last the Government are tackling one issue—the way in which some second home owners have gamed the system so that they pay neither council tax nor business rates—but many other problems remain. I live in east Suffolk, close to the popular seaside town of Southwold. With the recent growth in second home ownership and the rapid rise in properties available for short-term rent, of the 1,400 properties, now only 500 have full-time residents, while 500 are second homes and 400 are short-term lets; in other words, nearly two-thirds are not permanently lived in, and this has had a significant impact.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 172A in my name, but I want to commend the breadth of what has already been described in the three speeches that we have already heard. I strongly commend Amendment 170, in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench, about bereavement; we have to be careful what we do here.
I want to make it clear that I am not speaking about empty property. I think there is absolute clarity about taking action to bring back into proper use, as either rented or owner-occupied premises, those homes that have been empty for a length of time. However, I shall touch on some of the complexities relating to second homes. I declare a very long-term interest from 1987 onwards, because I was involved in having to have a second home as a Member of Parliament, as MPs outside a radius of 25 miles of London will inevitably have to do if they are serving their constituency appropriately. Not all do so, but these days most see it as their duty to have a foothold, a footprint, in their constituency, even if they spend more time than would otherwise be necessary in London.
Perversely, because of the nature of our housing market, even with the new rules through the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—which will pick up, on behalf of the public purse, the cost of second homes—there can be the very perverse situation where someone chooses to designate their second home in one place when actually it is their main home, because they do not want to be caught on their death in relation to capital gains, or when they move. There are all kinds of complexities that many people speaking today know more about than I do when it comes to the housing market.
I want to address the importance of the devolution of decision-making to local authorities, but with the proviso that those authorities are encouraged, in whatever way is appropriate, to do a proper research review themselves of the impact of the actions that they take, because the intent—and I have to say it is a very socialistic intent—of the legislation before us, in the debate that we are having, can have completely perverse consequences. Today we have heard references to short-term lets and Airbnb, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter mentioned last Thursday, and to holiday lets. They are very different, but all have very similar impacts in the short-term nature of those coming into communities which otherwise would have long-term owner-occupier or renting residents. I separate the two because there are already consultations going out—or pseudo-consultations—from local authorities across the country, consequent on and in anticipation of the passing of this legislation, which fail completely to distinguish between ownership and rent.
Of course, there are people with second homes who rent them on a long-term basis, perhaps on a lease, and those who are the owners of the property. In certain parts of the country, we have very large landowners who are landlords and have built up over the years enormous portfolios of rented accommodation. They are the owners and people are renting—many of them local people who managed to obtain a rent agreement in the past that still holds. There is a residue of old agricultural workers legislation in some parts of the country.
The perverseness I refer to is that, on many of these large estates, when accommodation for rent becomes available because the tenant leaves—for whatever reason—it is turned into holiday lets. They are turned into business rate, rather than council tax, providers, which changes the character and nature of the locality. Of course, many second-home renters or owners may turn up infrequently. However, many, not least because of the experience we had from Covid, are spending a quite lot of time in both their homes using the facility of being online and—if I might touch on a controversial issue—working from home for part of the week. This has also transformed the nature of how the impact might be felt at a local level.
I want to put on record that, although I have no problem at all with this, it is important going forward—and I hope the Government will bring forward their own amendment—we ensure that a proper economic and social impact assessment is undertaken by people who know what they are talking about. I am afraid to say this as someone who spent many happy years in local government, but many authorities, particularly small ones, do not have officers with the first idea how to conduct a proper research survey, never mind analysing it.
If we do not get this right, it will have consequent perverse outcomes none of us wants. The purpose must surely be to try to get as much accommodation as possible available for long-term local provision, either for let or owner-occupation, to keep the life of those communities going. If action is taken that has a very different effect and pushes accommodation that is currently available for rent into holiday lets, we will have achieved exactly the opposite outcome to the one we seek. As I have some experience of this and know what is going on, for example in the Peak District, I counsel very strongly that we build in guidance so that we get what we think we are getting, rather than the opposite. It does not matter if it is a 100% or 300% council tax hike if you get the wrong answer and it switches to national business rates. Neither local people nor the local authority will be the gainer.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer Green support for the general direction of all of these amendments. I will attempt not to repeat the tale of woe we heard, but I will make a couple of additional points and also pass on some good news, because I think we need some at this point. In the debate on the last group, I should have declared and put on the record that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly about saturation areas and Article 4 directives that already exist under the planning system. I support the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath. It is important because it would enable neighbourhood plans to include policies relating to the proportion of dwellings that may be second homes and short-term holiday lets under a use classes order proposed by other new clauses in this set of amendments.
Saturation areas already exist and can be defined under the licensing system—for example, for outlets serving alcohol. They operate under the licensing system. Houses in multiple occupation are also subject to a licensing system, but, in my city of Newcastle upon Tyne, they now use the planning system as well, following a lot of work that the administration that I led undertook. Under the Article 4 directives, permitted development rights can be restricted where the conversion of a family home into a house in multiple occupation would continue a trend of making family homes very expensive to buy and not easy to obtain. Without those Article 4 directives, the nature of a neighbourhood can change significantly.
So I ask the Minister what the difficulty is, in principle, over second homes and short-term holiday lets. As we have heard, there is fairly widespread support now for giving local councils and local planning authorities greater powers to restrict long-term residential homes being converted into short-term lets or second homes. There is a range of principles that I think local authorities should be able to decide for themselves. They may decide that they want to encourage short-term lets and second homes because it might increase the number of people who are buying services from local retail outlets and local leisure outlets—restaurants, pubs and so on. There is some evidence in some places that I know that that may be the case, but surely it should be for the local planning authorities themselves to be making those decisions.
The simplest way is through the use classes orders that we have heard about, but the principle already exists within existing legislation, both within the licensing system and within the planning system. My noble friend Lord Foster said that more needs to be done, and that is absolutely the case. Whereas I would support a higher council tax payment for second homes—I think there is justification for that—I am not actually convinced that it will solve the problem. I think we have to use the planning system to resolve the difficulty we face, so I hope very much that the Minister will give further consideration to this issue, which is affecting so many small communities, particularly in rural and coastal areas. The time has come for the Government to act.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I will get the guilt off my shoulders through your Lordships’ provision of the confessional: I declare an interest as co-owner of a second home in the West Country and of two short-term let properties in the same area. All, like the house I live in, which is in another part of the country, are legacies of estates that have been broken up and whittled down. Both areas have important family historical and indeed, in some cases, national historical associations.
Having declared that, I ought also to declare to the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who mentioned the Built Environment Committee, that I was, until the latter part of January, a member of that committee, and very privileged to have been so under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who I am pleased to see in his place, and before him, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. So I am familiar with the matters that were brought before us. However, I shall leave a lot of that to one side because there has been a bit of disaggregation in the groupings here. We have group 10 coming up, in which aspects of this will recur, and I find that quite difficult to deal with: I shall try to avoid getting up then and saying the same thing all over again and boring your Lordships.
While I have involvement with both normal assured shorthold tenancy properties and short-term buy to let, I certainly do not have anything to do with keeping property deliberately empty: that would be complete anathema to me, and I say so as somebody with professional training: I am a chartered surveyor and I know that all that happens with empty properties is that they deteriorate. They are much better occupied and lived in or used in some way.
I agree with the general premise that residential properties should not be deliberately kept empty for no good reason. I know that in some areas—the City of Westminster is one—there was a thought that foreign investors were buying up high-end residential accommodation and keeping it empty under the premise that perhaps it was less valuable if it had been previously occupied. It takes all sorts, but that is a particular situation. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in her Amendment 166 because there is a great deal of speculation about how many empty properties there are and where they are. They are not always in the places where people want or need housing and have to live and work. So, first and foremost, there is a distribution problem, along with a numbers problem. We need to sort that out, and there needs to be better data on that.
I would go further and suggest that the reasons why a property might be empty need to be understood before we set about making dramatic changes, either to the amount that is levied or to planning, although I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that something probably needs to be done in some of the areas that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to—the hotspots. They are not actually everywhere; they are not in every town and city; they are in defined places. Even those who particularly object to the idea of second homes and holiday homes altogether on principle recognise—and the data seems to show—that these are in quite specific areas. They are not necessarily in holiday locations at the seaside; they can be in the middle of cities and in parts of Greater London. We need to identify that.
We should not underestimate the inventiveness of those faced with a surcharge, any more than we should fail to consider the equity of a surcharge where there is a genuine reason the property is empty. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to that and I use the example of the Ds: death, disrepair, dispute, debt, decarbonisation and, of course, redevelopment. Sorry, “redevelopment” is not a D, but noble Lords will get my drift.
Another aspect is that if there are to be additional charges, is that for the purpose of rectifying some particular, identifiable ill or mischief that is occurring, or is it just another tax? If it is just another tax and it is going into some jolly old pot, I am not particularly keen on that. There needs to be some degree of hypothecation. If there is a demonstrable case—for instance, that empty properties affect affordability in a locality or are adversely affecting incomers who might be economically active—the tax yield generated should perhaps be devoted to that or allied purposes and not put in some general pot. Presumably the case needs to be made.
I agree that ultimately, subject to some sort of national framework and means of analysis, the decision should be for the local community to put in place—and not necessarily be dictated from on high. The authorities, having made the case, must accept that the principle stood behind that is binding on them; otherwise, we risk a rather unedifying and opaque state of affairs, where the power is invoked for one reason but implemented for some entirely different objective altogether, and I would not be keen on that. We do not need a knee-jerk reaction to all that. There needs to be a consistent methodology for assessing the nature of empty second properties or short-term letting, and the detrimental effect these are having.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, gave a graphic account of the issue, which I know from—
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Before the noble Earl moves on to another point I raised, could I ask, through him, for the Minister to perhaps confirm that even in the current legislation as proposed, it will be possible for councils to add a premium on the council tax for empty properties? It would be for the council to determine how that money is used; for example, my own local council has already a debate on this issue and proposed that the vast majority of additional money raised will go towards the building of more affordable homes in the area—to address the problem that is now being created because of the empty properties and short-term lets.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, because that is exactly the point I am making about having a degree of hypothecation. In other words, it should not just go into the general purposes fund. I hope the Minister will comment on that, because there is a question of trust and transparency in this. If these things are to be robust, they will need that.
From my observations, I know that what the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said about the instances and the impact in some of these hotspot areas is true. However, we need a bit more data to get the visible, empirical facts. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, referred to that, and I entirely agree with him. We also need to identify the likely economic outcomes of certain actions. Letting platforms were referred to; we need an analysis of how they operate for some bits of businesses but not others, because they are doing lettings direct or whatever it may be, to get some idea of how that is functioning.
There is a bit of incoherence here. For a while, conversions into residential accommodation in rural areas were often subject to the condition that they could not be occupied full-time. They had to be occupied, effectively, as holiday accommodation. Usually, they could be occupied only for something like 11 months of the year continuously, because local authorities did not want to give consent for new, independent dwellings in the countryside; there was an objective not to add to them, which I understand.
When I attended a meeting on second homes at Exmoor National Park, it was asked why there was a reduced council tax assessment for people with second homes. It transpired that only by having the bait of self-declaration could they identify how many second homes they had in the area, so that is how they did it. I say incoherence, because one really feels that the world has gone mad in some of these situations.
There is a good deal of misinformation about what is perceived to be the vast profitability of short-term lettings. When I had the privilege of being on the Built Environment Committee, I ran a little exercise, which established what I knew: that I would be better off in headline income letting full-time on an assured shorthold tenancy. However, that would probably be not to a local person but to some writer, artist or someone who wanted a nice location. The real reason behind this is that, if you are dealing with an old stone cottage which requires constant maintenance and a lot of refitting—never mind that you may have energy issues and things breaking down; things go wrong in old cottages more than they do in new ones—you are constantly in and out. The only way you can keep control of that is short-term letting, because you can take a week out and get in there and fix the boiler and all the other things that have fallen apart. It is really not for the faint-hearted.
When you compare the weekly headline rents for short-term holiday lettings with those of an ordinary assured shorthold tenancy, you are not looking at like for like. You are not dealing with fully serviced accommodation, where all the linen and services are paid for, and where somebody just walks in and all they have to do is buy their own food and go, with all the cleaning and everything else being done in-between. All that costs money. One of the greatest litmus tests of health and well-being in these rural areas is whether you can get a cleaner or someone to fix your windows. That is the real test of what is happening in the economy. With that, I will sit down and wait for group 10.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I will speak briefly and narrowly to the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in which he argued for a national registration scheme rather than one which, as the noble Earl said, the Built Environment Committee said should be available locally and at local option. The noble Lord’s reason was that having a national registration scheme would make it easier for the Government to gather large amounts of data. That is a very weak reason for what would be an astonishing intrusion into privacy and the rights of property.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said that a national scheme was preferable because it could be implemented more quickly than one implemented by a local authority.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I beg the noble Lord’s pardon, but I heard those remarks made. I am simply saying that I do not believe that point; any scheme implemented by the Government at a national level will take a very long time to bring forward, whereas in my experience a local authority, duly empowered and with sufficient interest in the matter, could act more quickly.
One of the important findings of the Built Environment Committee was that this problem exists, as the noble Earl said, in very localised areas. We need to understand the problem if we are to find the solution, and so we need to understand the very important localism and find locally tailored solutions rather than rush into a national scheme which would be applied to the whole country and would involve a great deal of resource being spent to no particular purpose. As the noble Earl said, we will have the opportunity to return to this on group 10, whether this evening or on our next day.
As certain noble Lords have said, there is an anomaly in the taxation of properties, depending on how they are declared. If they are declared to be residential, they are liable to domestic council tax like anybody else, but if they are declared to be in business use, which is what an Airbnb-type property might be, they pay business rates. However, business rates are not paid by anything other than quite large businesses; very small businesses do not have to pay them. Therefore, by declaring oneself for business rates, one then qualifies for threshold exemptions that are not available for domestic council tax payers. Effectively, one escapes any form of tax on the property at all.
That is clearly an anomaly about which it would be worthwhile the Government thinking, but it seems to me that the right way to address it is to change the tax rules rather than introduce a large distortion in the property market. It is giving us a solution at the wrong end; if the problem is with the tax rules, it would be better and easier to remove the anomaly from them. However, we will have an opportunity to return to this later.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, a widow in Thoresby, in Nottinghamshire, is currently being evicted by the office of the Thoresby estate, having lived for 62 consecutive years in a rented property on that large estate. The reason given by the estate managers is that the new higher environmental standards required of landlords by government mean that doing up the property to an appropriate standard would be too expensive.
Therefore, this widow—after 62 years of renting and living in the same property—is currently being evicted. If, as in this case, a multi-landlord—and a recipient of many state grants over the years, as well as lottery money—has not invested sufficiently during those 62 years to bring the property up to a decent standard, there needs to be leverage for the local authority—in this case, Newark and Sherwood District Council—to ensure that a failure by the landlord to upgrade a property over a 62-year family tenancy does not result in an eviction and the emptying of a property. If the amendments in this group are not acceptable to the Government, how will they ensure that some decency prevails and that there will be effective use of existing properties which will become empty under current plans? What precise leverage will they give a local authority to ensure that this absurdity and injustice can be remedied by the local authority?
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will indulge me for a second. I know he knows the area very well and that the Dukeries have very large landlords and estates that he has described. Has he any knowledge in this tragic case as to whether it is likely that such an estate would sell the property, having evicted the tenant and renovated it, or is it likely that it will put it on the market as a holiday let?
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
As reported in the last few days, the estate is saying to the local media that it does not have the money to renovate so the property will become empty. Over the years, I have seen on other comparable estates similar properties: properties in an appalling situation in terms of utility and investment. It is the failure to invest by landlords that is the problem. I repeat to the Minister: what remedy is open to the local authority to ensure that this property remains available for someone to use—preferably so that this widow of 62 years’ tenancy is able to continue to live in what I think it is reasonable to describe as her family home?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns second homes, holiday lets and empty properties. I declare my interest as set out in the register as the owner of a second home in Wales.
In relation to Amendment 166, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I share her commitment to ensuring that we have the best-quality data to inform our policies. Indeed, I also share some of her concerns. I can assure her that we already have good systems in place; for example, local authorities report annually on the number of properties that have been classed as empty for more than six months. This data is published as part of the council tax base statistics. It is also used as the department’s measure of long-term empty dwellings that are published in the live tables on dwelling stock. This latter data includes the number of properties vacant on a particular day, as well as the number of properties that have been empty for more than six months.
As part of our council tax base statistics, we also detail the number of properties that are subject to the existing long-term empty property council tax premium. This shows the number of properties subject to the premium in each local authority area, broken down into the different levels of premium that apply, depending on the length of time that the property has been empty. We will continue to further refine the data we seek from local authorities to ensure that we have data on how many properties are subject to the extended premium, having been empty for more than 12 months. I hope that the noble Baroness is satisfied with that assurance on data that we already collect and propose to collect.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I ought to start by saying that I am also not a vice-president of the LGA, seeing as other noble Lords seem to have made that clear. This has been a very good debate with a lot of speakers, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. One of the things that has come across is the significant recent increase in short-term lets and the fact that something does need to be done around this.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support, his amendments and his speech. He made the very important point that a registration scheme is a good first step, but we do need to make faster progress on this. As he said, a consultation to get a better balance between first homes and second homes would be a very good start. I also congratulate him on his small victory, which the Minister just announced. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, made the important point of the significant impact on prices and affordability of more homes going to short-term let, and the fact that the Bill does not go far enough as it stands, as far as we are concerned. Again, I thank him for his support for our amendments.
I would also like to thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his support for my Amendment 170 regarding bereavement. And, while I am on Amendment 170, I am really pleased that the Minister said that there is going to be further opportunity to look at this, and perhaps some consultation. I would be really pleased to be kept informed of any developments on this area, but it is very good that people are listening and taking account of this particular consideration.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(10) In the case of a billing authority which is a district council in a county for which there is a county council, the increase in council tax arising from a determination under section 11B or this section must be paid into the collection fund.(11) Except to the extent that a billing authority decides that any proportion of the amount paid into the collection fund under subsection (10) should be paid from the collection fund to one or more major precepting authorities which issue a precept to that billing authority, the amount paid to the collection fund under subsection (10) must be paid to the billing authority.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that, in the case of a district council for which there is a county council, all of the income from the supplements under section 11B or 11C of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 would be retained by the district council as it is the housing authority. The amendment allows the district council to decide to allocate some of the supplement to any of its major precepting authorities if it so chooses.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 168B seeks to ensure that, in the case of a district council for which there is a county council, all the income from the supplements under Section 11B or new Section 11C of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 would be retained by the district council as it is the housing authority. The amendment allows the district council also to decide to allocate some of the supplement to any of its major precepting authorities if it decides to do so. I will not go into much detail about this amendment; I think what it is trying to achieve is pretty self-explanatory.
Previous days in Committee have included a lot of discussion about the important role that district councils play in delivering services to our communities. Noble Lords have talked about the fact that, in many parts of the Bill, they feel that district councils are being shut out. They will not have access to the same opportunities within the proposed combined county authorities, and they are not then going to get the support they need to continue to deliver services, including housing and planning. We believe that if the district council is the housing authority, it should be able to keep all the income from these sections of the Local Government Finance Act. It should also be in the district council’s gift to decide how that income should be used. In the previous debate, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, talked about local authorities being able to decide how funds are spent in other areas. Again, we absolutely agree that this is important.
My Amendment 169 would give the owner of a dilapidated property up to a year after acquiring the property to refurbish it before additional council tax rates are incurred. We touched in the previous group on dilapidated properties but, I suggest, from a different perspective. This is an issue that came to me when I was a Member of Parliament in the other place. Constituents would come to me because they were having financial difficulties in being able to update a dilapidated property, which sometimes they had inherited, because of the amount of council tax they were being clobbered with—to be blunt—which made it much more difficult for them to have the funds they needed to do up the property in good time. It was taking them a long time to do it up.
We know that bringing old, dilapidated buildings back into use will benefit the whole community. However, as I said, it can take a long time, depending on what is needed—for example, if there are problems with damp or you need a new roof. It can take a long time for properties to be restored to a good condition. My Amendment 169 recognises that there can be circumstances in which houses will not be occupied while work needs to be carried out. It is also designed to encourage people to bring homes back to a decent standard without being hampered by having to pay higher council tax rates, which, as I said, can impact on people being able to pay the costs of refurbishment.
The other amendments in this group, Amendment 428 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—I look forward to her introduction of the proposed new clause—and Amendment 474 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, look at the business rates system. Amendment 428 proposes to review it, and Amendment 474 proposes to review it and include consultation to look at how we can bring economic support to businesses, especially in high streets and town centres.
This issue is incredibly important. We know that business rates have had a very negative impact on many of our high streets and town centres, and I am sure we will debate that when we come to the group on high streets later in Committee. Noble Lords know that I feel very strongly that good public consultation and participation for communities is important when we are looking at these kinds of issues. We know that business rates are one of the most important taxes for local government, but they have also been blamed for the struggles of retailers, for the death of the high street and for exacerbating the country’s economic divides.
I suggest that there are three fundamental problems with business rates, which I ask the Minister to take away for further thought and discussion. First, they do not always reflect local economic realities. That became extremely clear during the pandemic, when many businesses struggled to keep going. Secondly, business rates can be far too complex; we do not need them to be that complicated. Thirdly, at the moment they actually disincentivise investment, which is crazy—they should be doing exactly the opposite.
We support these amendments, as we believe that we need a reformed system which will support towns and cities in improving their business environments, raise productivity and boost prosperity.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 474. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for allowing me to speak first. We both have the same objective in mind: that there should be a review of non-domestic business rates. The main differences between us are twofold: first, the noble Baroness’s amendment is slightly more prescriptive than mine; secondly, and more importantly, my amendment would provide for a public consultation. Those are the only two differences, really; there is nothing much more than that.
I should declare my interest as the owner of high street investment retail properties, and I am grateful for the support of noble Lords across the House who have signed my amendment. The objective of my amendment is stated in its proposed new clause: to make business rates
“fairer to businesses and to sustain economic activity and growth, especially in high streets and town centres.”
The Bill is an entirely appropriate vehicle for such a provision, since one if its major concerns is that there are empty high street retail properties and failed retail businesses both on the high street and in town centres.
I acknowledge the steps taken in the Autumn Statement to ease some of the economic burden of business rates but, if we want flourishing high streets, we need to look at the system as a whole and not rely on ad hoc changes. Those who invest in retail properties, whether they run small businesses there or otherwise, will want to know what their liabilities are—not what might happen in future—either to raise or reduce business rates or to introduce new ones. This is the one outgoing that is not negotiable. You can negotiate your employees’ wages; you can negotiate the rent; you can go to one of a number of power and energy suppliers; however, you cannot negotiate the rates.
The Government said by way of a manifesto commitment that they would reduce the overall burden of business rates. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility reported last year that the Government are
“forecasting that income from business rates will rise to nearly £36bn by 2027/28 (from £28.5bn in 2022/23)”—
a very significant increase that is quite contrary to that manifesto commitment.
There are numerous reasons why it is appropriate to have a review of—and, I would say, a public consultation on—non-domestic rates. Let me mention a few. The uniform business rate multiplier, which is used to calculate rate bills, is running much higher than its historical level, which was 34p; currently, it is 51p or 49.9p for small businesses. Consideration also needs to be given to the empty property rates relief; there is a question as to whether the six-month empty property rates holiday should be extended from the warehouse and industrial sectors to include retail and offices.
Then, there is the question of how often revaluations should take place for the purpose of fixing the level of rates, the suggestion being that it should be yearly. Another question is what is or is not rateable in relation to plant machinery. Finally—these are only a few of the considerations that need to be addressed—there is the question of the appeals system, which is too lengthy, not transparent and not accessible. Those are reasons why it seems essential to me that, if we are to have full and flourishing businesses and retail properties on the high street, we need to look at this one non-negotiable expense, which is running at an historical high, notwithstanding, as I said, the ad hoc reliefs granted in the Autumn Statement.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I totally agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said about his Amendment 474 and the complexity of the system. It is difficult for businesses to negotiate the terms which determine their viability; business rates cannot be negotiated; and the multiplier has risen substantially in the past few years, making the costs to businesses unaffordable in many cases.
Amendment 428 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley addresses a principle of business rates rather than the nuts and bolts. The key to levelling up and realising one of the ambitions of the White Paper—vibrant and successful town centres and high streets—lies in business rates. Too many town centres across the country are blighted by empty, boarded-up shops, which then become less attractive to local people wanting to shop there, causing a downward spiral.
I accept that the purpose of town centres is changing, as in fact it always has done. The balance of provision in town centres is increasingly shifting from the sale of goods towards services such as hair salons, nail bars and the like. However, the growth of e-commerce has put enormous pressure on traditional retail. This is where Amendment 428 comes in, because it would require a fundamental review in principle of business rates.
These are the reasons. The Government call it “bricks versus clicks” and “the tax imbalance” on the government website, which then refers to business rate revaluation, which actually does very little to redress the imbalance. I will give an example of one of the great e-commerce providers, Amazon. Its provision is in out-of-town warehouses and their rateable values are very low. An Amazon warehouse near me in Doncaster is paying rates at £45 per square metre—on average, because things change according to what is provided in a warehouse—whereas a small town centre shop near me has rates of £250 per square metre. We should think about that differential. The massive warehouse is providing retail goods, as is the small shop, but there is this huge disparity between the rates they are being charged, putting the town centre retail shop at a huge disadvantage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned in an earlier group that the Government are tackling this by reducing town centre business rates by 20% following the revaluation. I always get cross about the use of percentages, because they are ratios, so whether they are percentages of a large number or a small number makes a very big difference. A 20% reduction on this £250 per square metre still leaves them paying £200 per square metre. However, although the Government have raised the rates for e-commerce by 27%, they are still paying only £56 per square metre. The disparity is still enormous, leading to an unfair competitive advantage for the e-commerce sector.
The Government have rejected the idea of an online sales tax, and I can understand why. It will be complex. However, I urge the Minister to respond positively to my suggestion that the Government use the existing business rates system to provide for much fairer competition between e-commerce and retail in physical shops. E-commerce businesses have a huge advantage. Not only are their business rates low but some of them also manage not to contribute much taxation to the country. They lead to significant increases in the volume of traffic, moving the goods between warehouses or from warehouses to pick-up sites or people’s homes. Yet, if they use electric vehicles, which is a good thing, they are not contributing much to the upkeep of the roads. Whichever way you look at it, e-commerce retail is at a considerable advantage. That is not in line with the Government’s ambition, which I totally support, of having vibrant town centres. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, referred to incentives to help out-of-town warehouses. I think I have given the answer to that. The business rates for these e-commerce sectors must be in line so that there is fair competition between the two ways of providing retail goods.
Amendments 168B and 169, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, make a good case for the retention of rates income by district councils. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to that argument. On Amendment 169, it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, but I understood that there is already a grace period for uninhabitable buildings to be made habitable during which they are exempt from council tax. Maybe that is not the case, but I remember taking it through this House and I understood that to be the definition then.
It would also be helpful for us all to understand the definition of empty homes, empty properties, empty dwellings, because it is not always as it seems. Maybe the Minister will put me right, but my understanding is that empty properties are not empty if they are partially furnished. There is a whole debate around definitions of empty properties and uninhabitable dwellings that we probably need to understand more closely with regard to these amendments and the previous group in relation to council tax on holiday lets, short-term lets and second homes.
So that is my proposition to the Minister. We need a fundamental review of business rates because retail is changing fast. If substantial change to level the playing field is not made, the ambition for vibrant town centres will fail. I beg to move.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I was pleased to sign Amendment 474 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I also support the other related amendment in this group, Amendment 428, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Regeneration of high streets and town centres is particularly important in the context of levelling up. I cannot stress enough how important a thriving town centre and high street are for the morale of a city, for its togetherness and for its onward development. Many high streets and town centres in the regions, including in some areas in Derby, where I live, are struggling with low occupancy and empty premises. This must be resolved urgently if we are truly to level up the regions and bring back the economic dynamism that is required for further developments.
I know that the Government get this, and their plans for enhanced compulsory purchase powers and high street rental options could form part of the solution here. However, in my role as co-chair of the Midlands Engine All-Party Parliamentary Group, I have canvassed many local stakeholders on what would really make a difference to high street regeneration, and the theme that comes at the top of the list time and time again is business rates.
The current structure of business rates makes it simply unviable for businesses to set up in certain locations. To expand on what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, a property was being marketed on East Street, Derby last year at a lease of £35,000 per annum. It had a rateable value of £112,000 and rates payable of £56,000, so the rates were significantly higher than the rent. Another example, from the British Property Federation, is a property in a Hull for which the business rates bill was around three times higher than the rent a property in that location could reasonably demand. There are further cases of businesses not being willing to renew leases on their properties, even at zero rent.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name appears on Amendment 428, together with that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. I just want to say two things. First, I hope the Minister understands the seriousness of this issue. Proposals for the reform of business rates have been regularly promised in the past, and there is clear evidence that reform is needed.
Secondly, I draw the House’s attention to the announcement this morning, which will be furthered at a conference in Liverpool tomorrow, of the launch of the fiscal devolution report of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership. It makes five key recommendations: first, devolution of reform of the business rates system to all mayoral authorities; secondly, the creation of three new council tax super-bands; thirdly, devolution of stamp duty to local councils; fourthly, devolution of 1p of existing employers’ national insurance contributions for local transport services and infrastructure, as is done in France; fifthly, a tourism tax on hotel stays to support culture, protect the environment and improve visitor experiences.
There will be a debate about that and, as we have heard, consultation will be needed on how to reform business rates. The time has come for this to be taken very seriously and for proposals to be initiated. I hope the Minister can tell the Committee that that is what the Government intend to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for setting out in Amendment 168B her suggested redistribution of the income raised by the council tax premium from upper-tier councils to district councils. The proposed premium will provide all councils, including district councils, with the opportunity, where they set a premium at the maximum level of 100%, to raise double the revenue from each second home in their area.
Revenue from council tax is essential for a wide range of councils, providing them with funding to make available a range of public services which best fits the needs of the local area. Under this amendment, in an area with two tiers of councils the district council would be able to retain all the income raised by the council tax premiums. This would disturb one of the key components of the council tax system—that local authorities should calculate their council tax charge for local services on the same basis as each other, with equal access to the revenues generated. The long-term empty homes premium has been in place since 2013 and has followed this long-established principle. We trust councils to make their own decisions on where their funding should be spent, and we do not consider it appropriate to engineer the system to direct part of the proceeds of council tax to one particular type of authority in some parts of the country.
Different communities will have their own set of challenges and solutions to second home ownership and empty properties. For instance, this may be through additional funding for transport or education, which falls within the remit of county councils. The current approach provides flexibility for a range of councils and other authorities to generate additional income, which can be used as they see fit. If a council feels that funding should be put towards a particular goal such as housing, this should be discussed with the other authorities in the usual way.
A change in the distribution method for the council tax premiums would also create an imbalance between two-tier areas and areas covered by unitary authorities. For example, in a single-tier area with a high number of second homes, such as Cornwall, the council would be required to share the proceeds of the premiums with the other precepting authorities, such as the PCC or the fire and rescue service. However, in a two-tier area with a high number of second homes, such as Norfolk, the amendment would mean that all additional income was retained by the district council. Notwithstanding the second part of the noble Baroness’s amendment, there would be no obligation to enable precepting authorities to benefit from the increased income. This may be advantageous to the district but would prevent the income being spent on services provided by other authorities in the area that can benefit the local community, such as road maintenance and better care for the elderly.
I turn to Amendment 169, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We discussed earlier in Committee that the purpose of Clause 76 is to provide councils with an opportunity to apply a council tax premium on second homes. As with all properties, second homes may be in a variety of different conditions. For the purposes of Clause 76, however, a second home would be caught by the provision only if the property was substantially furnished. Indeed, this is an important factor in differentiating such properties from those that might be impacted by the long-term empty homes premium, as set out in Clause 75. Where such properties are substantially furnished, I would not envisage that they are likely to be in a condition to require significant work as a result of dilapidation. Therefore, the premium council tax on a second home applies only where it is furnished. However, in specific circumstances the local authority has tax relief powers as well.
Notwithstanding that potential distinction, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the clause already makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations that exempt certain classes of property from the effects of the second homes premium. Similar powers are already in place for the long-term empty homes premium. Obviously, before making any regulations the Government would wish to consult on any exemptions and to provide everyone with the opportunity to say what should—and, perhaps, what should not—be exempt from the effect of the premium.
The noble Baroness’s amendment also proposes a right of appeal against the imposition of a second homes premium. I can reassure her that, under Section 16(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, council tax payers already have the right of appeal against any calculation of amounts they are liable to pay, including any premiums.
Finally, Amendments 428 and 474 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The Government are of course aware of the pressures facing businesses, including those on the high street, and have acted to support businesses up and down the country. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, the Government have only recently concluded a comprehensive review of the business rates system. A final report on the review was published at the Autumn Budget 2021, alongside a package of reforms worth £7 billion over five years. The review recognised the importance of the system in raising funds for critical local services in England, worth around £22.5 billion in 2022-23, and concluded that there was no consensus on an alternative model that would be of sufficient scale to replace business rates.
At the Autumn Statement 2022, the Government went even further and announced a range of business rates measures worth an estimated additional £13.6 billion over the next five years. As part of that package the Government announced that the tax rate will be frozen for a further year. This is a real-terms cut to the tax rate, worth around £9.3 billion over five years.
In addition, the retail, hospitality and leisure relief will be extended for a further year and made more generous. In 2023-24, it will provide eligible businesses with 75% off their bills, up to a maximum of £110,000 per business. This is worth an estimated £2.1 billion to ratepayers, many of which are on our high streets.
Furthermore, in response to the concerns of businesses in England, the Government will, for the first time and subject to legislation, introduce a transitional relief scheme for the 2023 revaluation. This will be funded by the Government and is expected to save businesses £1.6 billion. This will mean that the 300,000 ratepayers—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I apologise to the Minister for interrupting her reply, but she seems to be listing all the ways in which the Government are providing help to businesses via different reliefs for their business rates payments. If the business rates system is so bad that it needs substantial relief from the Government for those businesses to survive—and the amounts that the noble Baroness referenced were substantial—I can only conclude that the business rates system, as it applies to businesses in town centres, is broken. That is the reason for the argument that I have made, and why I hope that the Government will accept that business rates need a fundamental change; otherwise, the Government will be continually asked to provide relief to enable businesses just to survive.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think I explained to the noble Baroness that we went out for extensive review—the issue is that we and local services need business rates—and there was no consensus on how they might be changed and made different, such that a similar amount of money would be coming in so that local areas could provide services. We tried but came to no consensus.
Lord Etherton (CB)
The Minister referred to, and I think the Government are relying upon, a 2021 review. What was the public’s involvement in that review?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry; I cannot tell the noble and learned Lord that, but I will make sure that I look into who, including the public, was consulted as part of that review. I will make sure that I get an answer to him and will put it in the Library.
As I said, in response to the concerns of businesses in England, the Government will introduce the transitional relief scheme for 2023. This will mean that 300,000 ratepayers seeing reductions in their rateable value at the revaluation also see an immediate fall in their bills from 1 April this year, rather than seeing those changes phased in over the life of the list. This will make the rates system much fairer and more responsive, and ensure that ratepayers benefit from the revaluation as soon as possible.
The Government also announced a supporting small businesses relief scheme, which will ensure that ratepayers losing some or all of their small business or rural rate relief as a result of the revaluation see their increases capped at a maximum of £600 in 2023-24. This is worth more than £0.5 billion over the next three years and will protect an estimated 80,000 small businesses. This is again on top of generous existing packages of statutory support provided to small businesses through the small business rates relief, which ensures that over 700,000 of our smallest businesses pay no rates at all.
The Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill provides additional measures to address empty properties on the high street, such as the high street rental auctions. These measures will empower places to tackle decline by bringing vacant units back into use and will seek to increase co-operation between landlords and local authorities. Auctions will make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable for tenants, including SMEs, local businesses and community groups. A review has only recently concluded and the Government remain committed to delivering on its conclusions. The £7 billion reform package announced at the end of that review and the £13.6 billion package of support announced at the Autumn Statement 2022 will, alongside the 2023 business rates revaluation, deliver vital help to those most in need, such as our high streets, and rebalance the burden of our business rates. In the light of these explanations, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who took part in the debate. I have two specific amendments in this group, but the debate has focused mainly on business rates. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, was right when he said that we need to look at the system as a whole and that business rates are not negotiable. That is part of the problem. If the Government are looking to reduce business rates, and they say that quite often, they need to look at how local authorities are funded, because so many are reliant on business rates. The debate has also demonstrated that the appeals system does not work at all. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, talked about the need for economic dynamism for high street regeneration and said that business rates are a problem to achieving it. I completely agree with this.
When introducing her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was right to refer to the mission to which this relates, which is about increasing pride of place. On that note, I point out that there is not currently any incentive for local authorities to improve their town centres and increase the business base, as they are subject to tariffs. This perverse system actually discourages proper investment.
Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about e-commerce’s advantage over town centre premises and said that we need a fair competition. I am sure that the Government accept that. The challenge for all of us is what to do about it—how do you make that level playing field? I do not think there are necessarily easy answers to that.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her supportive comments regarding my amendments. She asked a question on Amendment 169 around dilapidation and the grace period that councils can bring in. The Minister mentioned something along these lines. What I found, when I had constituents coming to see me who were in this position, was that you only got that reduction or grace period if the council agreed that there was an issue of dilapidation; they do not always do that. You can get people being unstuck if the council will not agree it—then that reduction does not happen, and people get stuck. That was one of the points that I was trying to make.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, rightly drew attention to the fiscal devolution document that is being published for the north. I think this is really important because we do not believe that levelling up is going to be successful without fiscal devolution.
I thank the Minister for, as always, her detailed and thorough response to my amendments; it is appreciated. I will make one final comment on business rates following the noble Baroness’s response. Rather than tinkering with reliefs and temporary measures, we believe the whole system urgently needs a complete overhaul. It needs replacing with a fairer system that actually works for business. The current system, unfortunately, does not. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires cultural, historical and archaeological factors to be considered before making a name change.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
My Lords, I come to this amendment with a deal of frustration about the clause being in the Bill at all. I have a great deal of support for the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, to Clause 77 in that I really have no idea what such an issue is doing in a Bill aimed at tackling big, strategic issues of levelling up and regeneration—never mind devolution. We have been told many times in debates on this Bill that the Government’s business is not to intervene with matters when they should be devolved to local authorities. So I can only assume this is there to pacify a noisy bee in someone's bonnet, perhaps on the Back Benches in the other place. The inclusion of this clause is even more peculiar when you consider the major issues that we think have either been left out of the Bill or skipped over, like local government finance, the business rate discussion we just had, proper consideration of environmental issues, delivery of social and affordable housing and even the Government's own levelling up missions, which are considered too transitory to be included in the Bill.
In my opinion, councils are perfectly able to deal with issues relating to street names without government legislation or intervention. If there are legal issues relating to that, perhaps they need to be covered. However, being realistic, I am aware even in my short time in Parliament that bees in Back-Benchers’ bonnets can be exceedingly loud and powerful. So if we are not going to persuade the Government that this clause has no place in a strategic Bill, my thought was that we had better make it add some value to the existing process for street naming.
Because I live in a town that was subject to a fantastic and visionary master plan back in the 1940s and 1950s, it was designed so that street names are zoned. For example, in one part of the town, you have streets named after women pioneers, which I really approve of: Ferrier Road, Nightingale Walk and—my favourite—Pankhurst Crescent. Another area is great architects: Telford Avenue, Wren Close, Nash Close and so on. So with a modicum of knowledge of my town, you can navigate your way around. Our street naming committee maintains a list of further names for that area to allocate as developments occur, upon which extensive community consultation takes place, as you would expect from a co-operative council.
I presume that this clause is aimed at tackling issues which arise when it becomes apparent that an individual after whom a street is named does not have quite the gilded reputation that they may have done previously, or when our view of part of our history as a country alters because of cultural changes. That will happen from time to time; there is nothing wrong with that so far. But surely it is in a council’s gift already to consult with local people, set out the reasons for the change and get on with it.
My first amendment is to ensure that appropriate thought is given to the context, history, potential connotation and local perceptions of the proposed change. In relation to the point about archaeology, I think this does need consideration, as a brief search will determine whether any future development is likely to reveal earlier uses of the land which can help in determining new names. For example, the huge hoard of Roman coins which was found on one of our estate developments resulted in the proposed road names being scrapped in favour of Augustus Gate, Valerian Way and Jupiter Gate, to remind us of their Roman history. That is the kind of thing that can occur with a very brief search before naming occurs.
On Amendment 175 in my name, if we must prescribe the process for changing street names—my preference is obviously that we do not—then it is vital that effective consultation is carried out with all of those who live in the area and those who may have businesses there. For those who are resident, I hope it is obvious that they should be consulted. For business owners, there may be a cost involved—sometimes considerable—in changing their business address and ensuring they are given adequate time to assess and comment on any change is clearly vital. I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I have given notice that I think Clause 77 should not stand part of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her helpful introduction and explanation of the situation. This is a clause which is out of place in the Bill in the first place, but, more to the point, assuming that we will have to consider it, this is a clause in search of a problem and I cannot find out what the problem is.
If you turn to the impact assessment, the very first questions posed by every impact assessment are: what is the problem under consideration, and why is government action or intervention necessary? The impact assessment for this Bill is 101 pages long; I may not have been a very diligent reader, but I could not find any reference in it to this clause. It would appear that the Government have not answered the question in an impact assessment of what the problem under consideration is and why action is necessary. That has not stopped us getting a clause which is 67 lines long and covers two pages. It has not stopped us getting Schedule 5; I do not suppose too many noble Lords have ploughed through Schedule 5, but what it does is repeal the existing powers that there are for councils to change street names.
So I am none the wiser. Is this clause here to enable residents to change an unpopular street name in the face of a recalcitrant council that will not shift—perhaps they live in Savile Row and the word Savile has dropped out of favour and needs to be changed, but the council will not hear of it? Or is it here to prevent councils introducing an unpopular change that residents oppose? Putting it another way, is the target councils that insist on changing street names or councils that refuse to change street names?
One way or another, I was an elected representative for 37 years on various councils and at the other end of this building and never, in all my time, did I come across a case where either of these things obtained. I did come across cases where people wanted to change names or the council might think it was a good idea to change names. There was a straightforward discussion and consensus reached as to whether it should or should not happen.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My noble friend suggests that Raspberry Close might be what we have as a future name. This provision illustrates everything that is wrong about the Government’s approach to levelling up and this Bill. First, it removes an existing power of councils to do exactly what the Government say they want to control. It adds bureaucracy and cost, and it puts in a new procedure which is not needed at all but, just to be clear, is a centralised new procedure. The word “regulation” appears eight times in 42 lines.
It is a make-work clause for people in Whitehall. It serves no practical purpose, but it goes down to the smallest detail in the text. For instance, Clause 77(3) states that, the name having been changed, a local authority may put up a sign. That is a pretty good point; I am glad they did not overlook that. What kind of sign? Well, it can be “painted or otherwise marked”. Yes, that is another good point. I am glad they did not overlook that. Where can it be put? It can be put on
“a conspicuous part of any building or other erection”.
Is this not getting down to the absolutely absurd? Of course, at first I was worried that trees were not included in the places where you could fix a sign—but then I realised that the Minister would tell me that trees will be covered in regulations. In fact, the whole clause is covered in regulations. The whole Bill is covered in regulations. The only consolation I get out of this is that we have not yet been given the department’s list of approved street names—but possibly the Minister will tell us that that is going to come on Report.
This is an unnecessary clause: it is poorly drafted and dripping with red tape and the Minister should take it out of this Bill and let us focus on the real task of levelling up, to which it contributes in no way at all.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Well, my Lords, follow that. After that devastating forensic analysis explaining exactly why Clause 77 should not stand part of the Bill, I rise briefly to add a couple of additional points to the arguments just presented. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that this clause should go altogether, but I also understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is trying to ameliorate the mess to some degree. But I think it is clear that getting rid of the clause altogether is by far the best option, and I note that the Local Government Association has expressed its concerns about it.
I want to add one case study, one piece of analysis and one warning for the Minister and the Government in general. The case study concerns what has happened not with a street name but with a similar story in Stroud. There is what has been described as “an offensive racist relic” clock that glamorises the slave trade. When this became an issue, the council started an eight-week consultation. Some 1,600 people in a town with a population of 13,500 responded to that consultation; 77% said that the clock should be taken down. This is an interesting case study. One issue is that the clock is on a building owned by a trust. It is possible that the Secretary of State may have to be referred to on whether the trust is allowed to have this clock, which the people of Stroud have expressed their desire to see removed. This is my cautionary warning to the Government and the Minister. Do Ministers really want to get tangled up in these stories and issues?
Maybe they do, which brings us to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, about the purpose of this clause. It would appear that the purpose of the clause is that Ministers can be seen to take a position; that is surely a very bad reason to write law. The other case study warning, which has not been mentioned here but should be, concerns Bristol and the Edward Colston statue. That was a demonstration of what happens when public opinion is not listened to and when there is a strong clinging to tradition. As other noble Lords have said, times have moved on and things put up in the past are now offensive. People will take things into their own hands. It is clear that these are local issues that should be decided at a local level, and the Government really should not be sticking their oar in.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to continue the absurdity that my noble friend Lord Stunell spoke about. Clause 77(6) says:
“An alteration has the necessary support for the purposes of this section only if … it has sufficient local support”—
so one needs to determine what is “sufficient local support”—
Lord Scriven (LD)
Indeed. It continues
“where it is an alteration of a specified kind, it has any other support specified as a pre-condition for alterations of that kind.”
We then move on to Clause 77(7) and, as my noble friend Lord Stunell just said from a sedentary position, it seems to be in the regulations. It says:
“Regulations may provide that sufficient local support, or support of a kind specified under subsection (6)(b), can only be established in the way, or in one of the alternative ways, specified in the regulations.”
These regulations should make provision for a referendum and, according to Clause 77(8)(a), should specify
“the conduct and timing of a referendum and who is entitled to vote”.
So it may not be the whole street; it may be part of the street, the street next door or a few streets next door. Clause 77(8)(b) goes on to say, interestingly, that the regulation may say that it may not be a 50:50 percentage split, or 51%. It says that the regulation will set
“a specified percentage or number of those entitled to vote in the referendum”
and
“a specified majority of those who vote indicate their support for the alteration”.
Clause 77(8)(c) goes on to say that, following the first voting event, at another specific time, through regulation, a second vote could be held, or it could be determined that it could be part of the street or the whole street that then gets voted on in a second referendum.
I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Stunell: this is a most ridiculous clause. It should not stand part of this Bill. It has nothing at all to do with localism. The 1907 Act allows exactly for a street vote to take place if it is required. It seems that the right honourable Oliver Dowden MP in the other place let the cat out of the bag on what the issue is. I do not think it goes back to Nelson Mandela, but to a four-letter word: “woke”. Oliver Dowden said recently that this should stop people getting rid of historical names and putting in “woke” names.
This is a culture war in a Bill; it should not stand part of the Bill. It is not a problem that has been defined. The 1907 Act already determines that this can take place. Doing this through centralised regulations in such a prescriptive way is not what levelling up or devolution are about.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in the interests of some balance, while I have no idea what Clause 77 is doing in the Bill—I agree with the objections that have been raised; it is far too prescriptive—I thought it might be worth noting that, in Haringey where I live, over £100,000 was spent on renaming Black Boy Lane as La Rose Lane. That was due to concerns that the old name had racist connotations. However, it is disingenuous to talk about the idea that this was based on local consultations. The council did launch a consultation after the death of George Floyd but, since then, it has admitted that a significant number of residents of the street objected to the idea. Its inbox was full of messages from people objecting to the name change but it decided to carry on regardless.
The culture war is not so much in the Bill as in society. I do not think it is fair to say that this is all to do with Oliver Dowden playing the woke card, because there are real issues happening on the streets of the UK.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Will the noble Baroness accept that I said that this clause was based on what Oliver Dowden said? It was a direct quote. Would she also agree that the example she gives could be dealt with if the 1907 Act were deemed to be appropriate for all street name changes and the 1925 Act repealed? Then there would not be a need for this clause at all—the 1907 Act allows for street name changes with votes.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
It is true that I am not familiar with the 1907 Act in detail, if at all. It is also true that I did not introduce the subject of Oliver Dowden or the term “woke”; I was responding to the comment that was made. I would just like to carry on, as this bit of what I am saying is important to the Bill.
Sometimes people speak on behalf of local democracy and actually the problem is that what passes for local democracy at the level of consultations is often faux and sham consultations, and local people feel aggrieved. In Haringey, there has been a big row about whether the name even has racist connotations. Local people have put forward all sorts of ideas that it was to do with chimney sweeps or was based on King Charles II —all sorts of things. Local supermarket owner Ali Demirci has been going round asking people what they thought the original name was. Whereas the council seem convinced it is racist, local people do not necessarily.
The bit where levelling up comes in is as follows. Carol Lee, who has lived on the road for 35 years and has mixed-race children, was quoted in the Guardian as saying:
“I’ll have to change my driver’s licence, and that’s £40 alone. You have to look after your money these days”,
as well as saying that she objects and that this has been imposed, and so on. Graffiti has been put up on the changed sign and signs put up in windows with the original name on them.
I was simply making the point that, although I do not think this Bill is the right place to deal with it, I do not think there is nothing to be dealt with. As to the Colston statue question, it would be wrong if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested, we took to pulling down statues that we disagreed with because things did not go our way. I think that would be a destructive conclusion to reach.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend responds to the debate, I want to ask a couple of questions. I do not want to get into the detail of the public health Act, although I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who quoted marking and painting, the text here is simply the same as the public health Act, so I do not think the draftsman can be criticised too much for incorporating some of the original drafting in the process of rewriting this bit of legislation.
I have two questions. First, subsection (10) of this clause says:
“No local Act operates to enable a local authority within subsection (1)(a) or (b) to alter the name of a street, or part of a street, in its area.”
That relates to a district council or to a county council for which there is no district council. Are there any such local Acts? I was not clear what the import of this is, and whether there are local Acts that have given this power and they are being disapplied by this provision. I wondered whether my noble friend knew whether there were any such local Acts.
Secondly, I did not give him notice of this question, but I am asking my noble friend if he will be kind enough to see what the department’s view is on it. If one knows Cambridge at all, one knows that to the west of Cambridge there is a new town called Cambourne. I was the Member of Parliament there when it was first proposed and, in the original naming process for what were then three linked villages, it was intended to use the name Monkfield, since they were actually built on land that was called Monkfield farm.
However, the local authority discovered that it had no power to determine what the name of a new village or town would be. Presumably, the legislation, except in the context of development corporations, never believed that local authorities would be naming new villages or towns that were put on to greenfield sites by private developers. As it turned out, the private developer had the right in law to determine the name Cambourne, which it chose using Cambridge and Bourn, a local village. Everyone is perfectly happy about that now, but at the time it was questioned whether it was appropriate that a local authority could name streets but could not name a town. That is a curious situation for us to have arrived at.
As it happened, the local authority subsequently came up with the excellent name of Northstowe, which I think slightly reflects the point made in the other amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, since it used the name of the hundred within which the town subsists—namely, Northstowe—which historically had never been applied to a specific village or town, so a historic name was able to be given a modern usage. Fortunately, that worked okay without anyone having any problems with it. The question is: should the local authority have such a power and, if not, is this worth thinking about at some point?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I shall focus straightaway on the provisions of Clause 77 in the round, in response to the concerns and questions that have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Scriven, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Bennett.
Clause 77 creates a requirement for the necessary support to be obtained for any changes to street names. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked why the Government have included this clause in the Bill. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I must repudiate the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that this has something to do with the culture wars. The answer is that it addresses the issue that, in some places around the country, there has been considerable concern and disquiet where councils have taken it upon themselves to change the name of a street without any meaningful consultation with local residents.
Under the available legislation, which noble Lords have rightly said dates from the early 20th century, any council has the power to change the name of a given street without consulting the residents in the street. The provisions of the Bill will ensure that, instead, local residents will be properly involved in changes to street names that affect them—changes that, as we have discussed, can alter the character of their area. Street names are often an intrinsic part of an area’s heritage, cherished by the community for their history and representation of the place. Changing names involves both practical costs for residents and businesses and social cost to the community. We are clear that these costs should be borne only with the consent of those affected.
How that should be attained will vary according to the nature of the street and its importance in the community. A one-size-fits-all approach would be insufficient to properly allow the views of the community to be determinative. The clause will unify the approach to how changes to street names are made where currently the rights of the community depend upon where they live and, outside of London, the decision of the local authority as to how involved or not the community should be.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I totally follow the logic of what the Minister has just said, but would it not be the case that a solution would be, rather than a new provision, to revoke the part of the 1925 Act that a council can adopt, which says there should be no vote, in favour of saying that all councils must adopt the 1907 Act, which says there must be a vote?
Earl Howe (Con)
The problem is that there are, I am advised, three Acts of Parliament that date from the early part of the last century, and that has led to a confusing mix of provisions across the country. Many provisions are over a century old, as I say, and there is no transparency over which Acts apply where. We thought it simpler to take the opportunity to be clear in this Bill that there should be more local determination of these issues. The current legislation is antiquated in its drafting, apart from anything else, so this updating is intended to make the process clearer for local authorities. All that should make the process for renaming a street more democratic and ensure that the voices of the local community are genuinely heard.
Amendment 173, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would add additional criteria for local authorities when considering the renaming of a street. We entirely agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of history, archaeology and culture in this process. The last thing we want is anodyne street names divorced from the character and history of the area. However, as I have made clear, the Government are strongly of the belief that the final say on changes affecting street names should lie with local people. We fully expect those local views to reflect the historical or cultural associations of the names concerned and the importance that communities place upon them.
The amendment would create a duty on a local authority to consider the historical, cultural or archaeological significance of a name change. It is not clear that a free-standing additional requirement of that kind is necessary, nor is it clear how that duty would work alongside the provisions of the Bill. It could, for example, make it harder to secure name changes that had local support but where new considerations, such as the need to honour a local person or event, took precedence over an archaeological interest. We saw some Olympians having streets named after them following the 2012 Olympics.
It is for this reason that, with the aim of being helpful to local authorities, the Government would be minded to set out in statutory guidance how factors such as the history and culture of the area should be considered in bringing forward proposals for street name changes under this clause. We have consulted on the prospective secondary legislation and guidance to deliver these changes, and respondents were over-whelmingly positive about our proposals: 91% of respondents agreed that regulations and statutory guidance should set out how local authorities should seek consent when changing a street name. In view of that support, and of the fact that heritage and cultural significance are matters that local communities are best placed to weigh up for themselves, I hope I will have persuaded the noble Baroness that the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The 1907 Act is very clear. It is not antiquated or in any way there to be debated. The 1907 Act power may be exercised only with the consent of two-thirds of the non-domestic rates payers and council tax payers in a street. That is what the Act says. What is it about the 1907 Act and that provision which seems to be non-democratic and does not give the power to the people on the street to make the change?
Earl Howe (Con)
Because it is a one-size-fits-all approach and our judgment is that that is not an appropriate prescription for every situation.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The noble Earl is therefore saying that in one street it could be 51% and, in another street, maybe a couple of streets away, it has to be 75%. Is that what the noble Earl is saying? The provision in the 1907 Act is very clear. It gives a provision of what needs to happen and a percentage of the vote required to change the name. Is he saying that different streets need different percentages of the votes to change the street name?
Earl Howe (Con)
We cannot, at this stage, prescribe particular percentages to particular situations. This is to be worked through in regulations and guidance, which was, as I emphasised, the approach that respondents to the consultation felt was right: we should not be unduly prescriptive in primary legislation, but rather allow for some flexibility at local level depending on the situation under consideration.
I turn to Amendment 175 in the name of the noble Baroness. As I outlined, our view is that local people should have the final say on these matters, particularly, as the noble Baroness’s Amendment 173 demonstrates, when it comes to their local heritage. In this context, I agree with the underlying intent behind this amendment. There should be clear processes for making sure that views from all relevant groups that might be affected by a street name change are taken into account. It is, however, important that we do this in the right way so that the processes are robust but can be adjusted if needed.
The approach in these amendments would be prescriptive and would limit our ability to go further than simply consultation by making local views determinative, as the clauses do at present. But I want to reassure the noble Baroness that we will be setting out clear, transparent and robust arrangements in secondary legislation, as we set out in the consultation I already mentioned. In addition, by setting out the detail for how consultation on street naming will work in regulations and guidance, we can maintain flexibility to update processes in line with different local circumstances and changes such as new technology. I hope these remarks are helpful in explaining the Government’s approach to what is a sensitive issue.
My noble friend Lord Lansley asked whether there were any local Acts of Parliament that might affect this issue. I am advised that the Oxfordshire Act 1985 might be relevant here. I think I had better do further research for my noble friend to find out whether there are others—but that was the advice that I have been able to receive.
On his other question of the power to name new villages, I have no direct experience of this. My understanding is that what normally happens is a conversation between a private developer and the local authority and an accommodation is reached. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who clearly has direct experience of this, is shaking her head, so I do bow to her experience. It would seem appropriate that I look into this further and write to my noble friend once again.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. I thought this would be quite a short debate, but you never know here, do you? I am also grateful to the noble Earl for, as usual, a very thoughtful and considered response to the debate.
Our contention in tabling the amendments in this group was that the Government’s introduction of this clause to the Bill was kind of bizarre in a way. We have looked at some very key strategic issues in the debates already—we are likely to come to more in the days in Committee to come—around local finance, business rates, environmental issues, affordable housing and so on, and found that there is not as much in the Bill as we would like to see on those. However, what seems to be an issue covered by previous legislation and seems for the most part to be managed perfectly well in local areas—there may be some notable exceptions—gets a whole clause in the Bill.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for his careful evisceration of the clause—that is what it was. He used the term “a clause in search of a problem” and asked the clear question: what is the problem here? He also referred to the impact statement having no reference to this clause. I think the idea is that there may be—let us face it, there probably are—some councils around the country which either insist on name changes that have not got public support or resist name changes that have. But the existing powers, as has been consistently referred to through the debate, require a consultation of ratepayers to vote in favour of a name change, so it is difficult to see where the push comes from.
I know that this issue causes a great deal of concern in local areas if there are things that have gone wrong, but surely the pressure on a democratically elected council would be to make sure they had their residents alongside them if they were going to present a change of name, not to push against that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about the LGA supporting getting rid of this clause. I noted that from the LGA’s briefing. The idea that people really want to get tangled up in these issues in Parliament is odd, to say the least, as far as I am concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, talked about measuring sufficient local support. Leaving this to regulation seems, again, to be a huge sledgehammer to crack a nut. If we are going to have regulations around the conduct and timing of a referendum and what percentage is going to get us over the line in terms of what we call our road, that kind of centralised direction has no place in a Bill that is supposed to be concentrating on devolution. I do not want to get caught up in the issue around roads in Haringey particularly. It may be in that case that the consultation did not take place; I do not know.
Earl Howe (Con)
I do not think the noble Baroness has understood the issue. This has everything to do with devolution; that is the whole point of the clause.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Well, I think that regulating to the extent of telling where signs can be put and whether they should be painted or printed really is against the spirit of devolution.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made good points on what powers local authorities have to name which things. We should not avoid the fact that private developers will of course choose to name things in a way that they think will help them to sell properties in an area. They will choose either road names or settlement names because they think it is in their interest and will help to sell properties. If we are to have this clause—I assume we will, because I doubt the Government will withdraw it—we need to think about this as well. Areas should be named according to some kind of local connection, whether it is history or individuals connected with the area—my second amendment refers to this—and I do not think that this should be entirely in the hands of developers.
I have not changed my view on this clause. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that it does not have much of a place in the Bill, but if it is going to be in there, when name changes are made we need to think about what the connections are. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on this. We also need to think about proper public consultation on matters such as this. If it has to be in the Bill, so be it, but local authorities have managed this perfectly well so far and there is no need for a clause such as this in a broad-ranging, strategic Bill. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Health and Disability White Paper
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking this Question. The PIP assessment is designed for a totally different purpose from the work capability assessment, so my first question is this: how will the Government reconcile those two completely different systems? What will happen in future to people who do not currently receive PIP—those on the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit—and particularly those with short-term and fluctuating conditions? Unless it is the Minister’s intention that some 750,000 people will lose £350 a year, an alternative needs to be in place. What would that alternative be and what would it look like? Finally, do the Government believe it is fair that the hundreds and thousands of people with disabilities that prevent them even engaging in work-related activity should receive less financial support through universal credit than people who are entitled to PIP? If so, what is the basis for that justification?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
I will attempt to answer the noble Baroness’s questions. However, I start by saying that, as she will know, these reforms are the biggest undertaken in a decade and have been years in the making, with our initial paper having gone out for a consultation in 2021.
The main answer is that we are very much focused on ensuring that more people are supported into the workforce so that they can enjoy the positive impacts of work, through a more simplified system. I turn to improving our services, which is probably at the heart of the noble Baroness’s question, in focusing on PIP. Putting aside the delays, which I realise we are making progress on, employment and health discussions, which are being tested at the moment, are led by healthcare professionals and focus on how we can help people to overcome their barriers to moving towards work. Furthermore, we have the enhanced support service and the severe disability group for those with the most severe health conditions, and we are developing the skills of our assessors to match people’s primary health conditions. These are game-changers and mark a significant change from the current system.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The Minister said that this White Paper has taken a long time to get here, but the rollout will not start until 2026-27, so I really hope that the Minister will provide assurance that a lot of the concerns raised by the disabled community will be addressed before it starts to roll out. Plenty of people would fall through the cracks—they are currently not receiving PIP but they are going through the WCA process—so what happens to them? The Chancellor said, with a great flourish, that sanctions will be “applied more rigorously” to people without a health condition, but many disabled people do not have a health condition, so what happens to them? The current level of sanctions causes distress and worse: the Government know that Jodey Whiting killed herself after her benefits were wrongly cut off, and the DWP was found guilty of five serious failings in her case. What will the Government do to ensure that benefits are not cut off from disabled and vulnerable people?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will quickly pick up on the noble Baroness’s point about the Jodey Whiting case. Our sincere condolences remain with Ms Whiting’s family. The department is ready to assist the coroner with their investigation, but, as the noble Baroness will expect, I am not able to comment on active legal proceedings.
On the noble Baroness’s point about timings, we are deliberately rolling out this new definitive programme over a number of years, which will allow us to look at those who might fall through the cracks, as she put it. There is a lot of work to be done between now and 2027-28. The main thing is that we are investing in employment support for disabled people and people with health conditions, and we are stepping up our work-coach support across the country. That perhaps plays into another question: this takes time to put into place, but we are already recruiting for new work coaches, we are extending the work and health programme, and we are rolling out our new in-work progression offer to help people in work on universal credit.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, occupational health services up and down the country obviously play a vital role in helping disabled people to stay in work and in their quest to get back into work. However, large firms that have HR departments and other resources find it much easier to access occupational health services than small businesses and micro-businesses, so what can the Government do to help them? Also, am I right in saying that there is a national shortage of occupational health professionals? If so, what will the Government do about it?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point: small employers are five times less likely to provide access to occupational health services than large employers. Only 19% of SMEs provide occupational health services for their staff. Bearing in mind that, as I said, this must be a game-changer, we have a number of supporting initiatives in place: developing the test for a financial incentive and market navigation support for SMEs and self-employed people; working with the occupational health sector to identify better ways to support development; and delivering a £1 million fund to stimulate innovation in the occupational health market.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about sanctions, but I do not think that the Minister answered her, so perhaps I will ask the question in a different way. Can the Government guarantee that work-related activity will be voluntary for those receiving the health element?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
It will be, but, as I mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we have a number of matters to work through, which is why I have said that it will take time. Sanctions are part of this: for example, in November 2022, the universal credit sanction rate was 6.51%. Sanctions underpin conditionality and are a key part of a fair and effective welfare system, so it is right that a system is in place to encourage claimants to take reasonable steps to prepare for and move into work. We need to keep our eye on this.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is an odd White Paper because it misses out a whole chunk of the system: the link between education and benefits. The Government have just produced a paper that says they are going to do much better at identifying special educational needs. Here, I should remind the House of my interests. Reference is made on page 12 to all the neurodiverse groups. You would expect these to manifest in the education process. How are they going to go through? Are the Government requiring an education and healthcare plan? Will there be some other form of identification? How is this to be done? This is a long-standing problem that means assessors and lawyers make money. Can the Government tell me how they will disappoint these groups?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord is right that this is another area we need to focus on, particularly those with neurodiversity issues or, indeed, autism. We have made progress in seeing more disabled people in employment but, as he will know, progress is not even. Groups such as autistic people are still showing very low employment rates—for example, only around 26% of working-age autistic people are in employment—so there is much work to do. This will be a factor in what we look at over the next few months and years as part of these new initiatives.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
I am glad that the Minister mentioned autistic people. How will the proposals in this White Paper impact on people with learning disabilities? They probably have the lowest rate of successful employment of any group, with some 6% fewer adults in employment, and it is difficult to see how such a complicated system is going to help them. Can the Minister help?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I hope I can help the noble Baroness by saying two specific things. She will know that we have the national autism strategy, which was launched in 2021. As to what we are doing now with the recent announcements, it is very important to highlight our Disability Confident programme. It is incredibly important that we work ever harder to persuade employers to take on those with these conditions, because there is no doubt that many of them are able to work and can offer huge benefits to employers. This disability gap needs to be closed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, having spent years of my political life supporting disabled people campaigning against the dreadful Atos and its application of the work capability assessment, I find myself with some surprise echoing the concerns we have heard from all sides of your Lordships’ Chamber about this proposal. My question to the Minister is a fairly simple one. James Taylor, chief executive of Scope, said in responding to this White Paper:
“The Government has got a mountain to climb to win back the trust of disabled people.”
Does the Minister agree with that assessment?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I certainly do not. Having said that, we are not complacent. There is an awful lot we have done, some of which I have mentioned already, for the disabled cohorts, and it is incredibly important that we do even more to encourage those who are disabled to come into work. Having produced some surveys, we know already that 20% of those who are disabled want to work, and actually, 4% of that 20% want to work right now. So there is an awful lot we can do, but the picture the noble Baroness has painted is neither fair nor accurate.
Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill
Monday 20th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2023 View all Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 6 March 2023 - (6 Mar 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
I am delighted that we have the opportunity today to discuss this important legislation, which will make a huge difference to millions of families. This Government fully understand the pressures that households across the UK are experiencing as we continue to face the challenges of high inflation brought about by global issues such as the war in Ukraine and the legacy of Covid. The Prime Minister has set out our ambition to see inflation halved this year, easing cost of living pressures and increasing financial security for families. The Office for Budget Responsibility is now forecasting that CPI inflation will fall to 2.9% by the end of 2023.
Nevertheless, short-term challenges remain, so it is vital that the Government continue to take a responsible and disciplined approach to public spending while supporting vulnerable people and protecting vital public services. This is why we are taking this further decisive action, as announced by the Chancellor last November, to help families through this difficult period. The measures we have taken over the last year demonstrate that this is a Government who will always protect those who are the most vulnerable to changing economic conditions.
To give some context before I turn to the specific provisions of the Bill, it is our firm belief that the best way to help people to improve their family’s financial circumstances is to support them to move into and progress in work. The measures we took to protect millions of jobs over the pandemic are just one example of the extraordinary interventions by this Government to maintain a strong labour market. There are almost 1 million fewer workless households compared with 2010, and unemployment is close to a 50-year low at 3.7%. But with 1.12 million vacancies, our focus remains firmly on helping people take advantage of these opportunities. The core support provided in our jobcentres, including the new in-work progression offer, builds on these priorities.
Noble Lords will have heard the Chancellor announce a range of employment measures in last week’s Budget that will provide further support to help people enter work and increase their working hours. This includes extending childcare support so that eligible working parents in England will be able to access 30 hours of free childcare per week for 38 weeks of the year from when their child is nine months old. For those on universal credit, childcare costs will be paid in advance when parents move into work or increase their hours, with an increase to the childcare cap to £951 for one child and £1,630 for two children.
To further support low-paid workers, we are making the largest ever cash increase to the national living wage from April: an increase of 9.7% to £10.42 an hour. This represents an increase of over £1,600 in the annual earnings of a full-time worker. Also, from April more than 10 million working-age families will see their benefit payments rise by 10.1%, nearly 12 million pensioners will see a 10.1% increase to their state pension, and we will increase the benefit cap levels by 10.1%. Helping people to improve their living standards through work will always be our overriding priority, but it is also right in these challenging times for the Government to step in and provide additional support, especially for our most vulnerable citizens.
In 2022-23 our substantial package of cost of living support provided help through the energy price guarantee, the household support fund and the initial tranche of cost of living payments for those on eligible means-tested and disability benefits. The energy price guarantee offered much-needed support for rising energy bills. As noble Lords will have heard last week, the Chancellor announced that we will maintain the energy price guarantee at £2,500 for a further three months from April 2023. We made over 30 million cost of living payments to those who needed them most in 2022: £650 was made available to households on means-tested benefits; £150 payments were made available to those on eligible disability benefits; and there was a £300 top-up to winter fuel payments to more than 8 million pensioner households.
The household support fund, distributed by local authorities in England to help households with the cost of essentials, has been providing support since 2021. We have announced a further extension for the next financial year. Local authorities have accountability for supporting households in the most need, particularly those who may not be eligible for the other support the Government have recently made available. The devolved Administrations will receive Barnett consequentials to spend at their discretion and with their local knowledge.
I turn now to the specific details of the Bill. Noble Lords will note that this is a narrowly defined Bill with one very simple aim: to get financial support to those most in need. It gives the Government powers to make vital cost of living payments of up to £900 for more than 8 million households on eligible means-tested benefits and £150 payments for more than 6 million people on qualifying disability benefits—worth around £8.6 billion in 2023-24. These are tax free and not subject to the benefit cap, so people will receive every penny of these payments, which will be made automatically, so no one will need to apply.
These payments will be made across the UK. We are legislating on behalf of Northern Ireland, as we did with the 2022 payments; this approach has been noted in an exchange of letter by the respective Permanent Secretaries. The Secretary of State has obtained formal Cabinet clearance to legislate without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, given that there is currently no sitting Assembly or caretaker Minister for Communities.
This Bill replicates the successful and straightforward approach that enabled the Government to make cost of living payments this financial year while maintaining core benefit delivery. We recognise that keeping the policy simple means that some people may miss out. This is one of the reasons for making three separate payments: to reduce the chance of somebody missing out completely. There is also the wider package of support that I have touched on already, including the household support fund.
These payments are a crucial measure of support, demonstrating this Government’s commitment to helping those most in need. This Bill gives much-needed financial security and support for the most vulnerable during this period of higher inflation, through hundreds of pounds given directly to millions of families around the United Kingdom, and I commend it the House.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it would be churlish not to welcome this Bill, which will bring much-needed support to those who qualify for the payments it provides. However, I am sure the Minister did not expect unqualified praise from me. The qualifications are twofold: they concern context, or rather a different take on context from the Minister’s, and the shortcomings of one-off payments.
With regard to context, I will not repeat the arguments I made during our recent debate on the uprating regulations, covering the cuts in the real value of benefits since 2010, the current freezing of the local housing allowance, which we will be debating on Wednesday, and the impact of the much higher inflation rate suffered by those on low incomes when the price of basics such as food and fuel is going up faster than average prices. However, I want to go back to the point about claimants having had to struggle this past year on benefits uprated by only 3.1% when inflation was expected by the OBR to average 10.1% over the period. We were told last year not to worry as it would all be smoothed out in the subsequent uprating, but since our debate last month I have seen the following warning from the Institute for Fiscal Studies:
“Astonishingly, it is not until April 2025 that benefit rates are set to recover the ground they lost … due to lags in uprating them with inflation”.
I am sure the department will have seen the IFS pre-Budget briefing in which this was stated, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on this warning.
This brings me to my second qualification, because no doubt he will respond that the one-off payments will help bridge the gap. But using one-off payments rather than an additional uprating to weekly benefits, to help those on low incomes cope with the cost of living crisis, has a number of limitations, as was made clear during the passage of the Bill in the Commons. A general point, made by the Work and Pensions Select Committee last year, with reference to the last set of cost of living payments, is that
“regular, predictable income”
rather than lump sums is
“better for households trying to manage a budget”.
In other words, a regular income does a better job of providing the financial security that social security is supposed to provide. However, the Government did not heed the committee’s call for options other than one-off payments to be prioritised in future. Instead, other than a small but welcome tweak, they have simply replicated the approach taken last year, with all its limitations. One of these, highlighted by the Treasury Select Committee, is the “cliff edges” it creates so that
“those who earn one pound too much, or become eligible for a benefit one day too late, may not receive it”.
As a result, some of those on low incomes will lose out, with
“implications for fairness, and … work incentives”,
as the committee pointed out. The committee therefore recommended a payment each month for six months, but it seems that “the computer said no” and the only concession has been the tweak that replaces the original two payments with three—mentioned by the Minister.
Unfortunately, some of those “cliff edges” are created by the rigid operation of universal credit’s monthly assessment period, which means some universal credit recipients do not receive the benefit for one month because of the way their wages are paid. Other problems raised in the Commons debate concerned the self-employed, pursued by Conservative Sir Robert Neill, and those who have been sanctioned. According to the Bill’s impact analysis, 7,000 households lost out on the first of last year’s cost of living payments solely due to a sanction.
Nigel Mills MP, a Conservative member of the Work and Pensions Committee, tabled an amendment with Sir Stephen Timms, its chair, that would extend the qualifying period from one to two months, making it less likely that someone would lose a payment arbitrarily. He made, in my view, a very strong case, pointing out that it would be more consistent with universal credit’s objective that work should always pay. He also pointed out that the current rules put UC recipients at a disadvantage compared with those still receiving tax credits, which was unfair. He made a similar suggestion last year, so there was plenty of time for it to be considered.
I found the Minister’s reasons for rejecting the amendment, which referred to
“administrative challenges such as out-of-date contact or bank details”
and extending the time
“between eligibility and payment”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/23; col. 99.]
less than convincing. Perhaps the Minister today could make a better fist of explaining why what seemed to me a perfectly sensible amendment was rejected. To say breezily, as the Secretary of State did, that even if someone loses out on a payment because of qualifying period anomalies, there will be one or two others they may qualify for coming along, suggests a complete lack of understanding of how every pound can make a difference when someone is struggling to make ends meet.
Another problem with the way that these one-off payments have been structured is that a single person gets the same amount as a family with children. The Minister in the Commons did at least acknowledge the point, but said they could not find any better solutions. Once again it would seem that policy is driven by technology rather than the other way round. When Barnardo’s finds that almost a quarter of parents polled struggle to provide sufficient food for their child—just one example of the impact of the cost of living crisis on families with children—surely everything possible should be done to ensure that children are adequately protected. Surely this group fits the Minister’s description of those most in need.
Another group in vulnerable circumstances who are losing out are carers not in receipt of means-tested benefits, just as was the case last year. According to Carers UK there are several hundred thousand carers in receipt of carer’s allowance who do not receive means-tested benefits, many of whom are facing serious financial stress. Carer’s allowance is paid at a lower rate than equivalent benefits, yet carers do not qualify for a cost of living payment akin to the disability additional payment included in the Bill—why not? Why are carers being ignored in England when in Scotland and Wales additional provision has been made by their respective Governments?
The stock ministerial response, which we have heard again this evening, to all these criticisms is that those who do not benefit from the payments in the Bill can turn to the household support fund, which has been extended for a year, which is of course welcome. However, a discretionary cash-limited fund is no substitute for reliable payments as of right. In the Commons, Nigel Mills was pretty dismissive of this stock response, pointing out:
“It is far better practice to make the laws we pass work, than to have discretionary funds to try to fix things.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/23; col. 87.]
Both he and Sir Stephen Timms were sceptical that many constituents would know about the fund and would realise they could apply to it if they failed to qualify for a one-off payment even though they were struggling. The Minister tried to reassure them by referring to
“strong communications and engagement with local authorities for anybody who may be missing out”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/23; col. 98.]
Could the Minister give us more information on what exactly the Government will be doing to increase awareness of the fund and its availability in such situations?
A note on the fund from Citizens Advice suggests a degree of growing awareness as more people claim help, but it also indicates a number of barriers to accessing it and difficulties where help is provided by way of vouchers rather than cash. It raises a number of issues with the eligibility criteria, with some local authorities applying more restrictive criteria than others and many rationing access or running out of money. Inevitably, given its discretionary nature, there is something of a postcode lottery. Ultimately, Citizens Advice concludes that the fund is not really suitable to deal with a situation in which huge numbers of households are finding themselves with incomes that cannot stretch to cover their outgoings. CA advisers commented:
“It’s just a drop in the ocean … a very small sticking plaster on a very big wound.”
At the end of the Commons consideration, the Minister said that the DWP
“is planning an evaluation of the cost of living payments … we will consider what further information we can release in future.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/23; col. 101.]
Can the Minister, either now or in a letter, give us more details of that evaluation and an assurance that its findings will be published? We cannot amend this Bill, but given that this is the second year running in which we and colleagues in the Commons have criticised the approach taken, at the very least we can hope that questions will be answered and that the evaluation will lead to lessons being learned.
I have one final practical question. Organisations on the ground are urging the Government to name the date of the first instalment to help struggling families budget. The DWP has responded that it will be in the spring and that specific dates will be confirmed closer to the date. Given that today is the spring equinox and, officially, it is spring until June, can the Minister at the very least tell us whether it will be early, middle or late spring, to give struggling families a little bit more certainty?
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome this measure. Very briefly, I will touch on three points: current plans for tackling anomalies arising from the Bill; the task of achieving better longer-term solutions; and finally, in that connection, taking proper note of what works best in other countries.
The Bill’s eligibility criteria are commendably simple. As my noble friend the Minister has observed, these can enable payments to tens of millions of people in a timely way, thus also reducing adverse effects from otherwise more complicated legislation such as unnecessary levels of delay, error and fraud.
Yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, indicated, there are still inconsistencies—not least that emanating from what in this case are flat payments. For here, the proposed disbursements would be the same regardless of household size, even though larger households have higher spending needs, particularly those with children. The latter stricture also reflects another mismatch between this Bill and universal credits, which are higher for couples than for single people, and children are also recognised in that system. Then there is the so-called cliff-edge problem, caused by the cost of living payment being linked to receipts of means-tested benefits, meaning that a person who earns just £1 above the limit could lose out on £900.
First, among the recommendations of the Treasury Committee is to provide a greater number of lump-sum payments than the two in 2022-23. This would help ensure that more households have support when they need it most, while reducing disincentives to work within each relevant assessment period. The second recommendation is to deploy the payment model used in the energy bill support scheme; that is a payment each month for six months, thus enabling regular help over the colder winter period. Thirdly, in advance of future adjusted methods of support, it recommends that the Government assess the work disincentive effects of different sizes and frequencies of lump-sum payments. The fourth recommendation is to judge whether a taper might better incentivise work as part of any subsequent payments from 2024-25. Does my noble friend assent that these four prescriptions for improved and adapted delivery should now be followed?
Also, further to assist better longer-term solutions, does my noble friend concur that constant and proper study must be made by this country of what works best in other countries? The United Kingdom plays an active part within the intergovernmental European Committee for Social Cohesion of the Council of Europe. That committee facilitates dialogue and the exchange of best practice. It is particularly relevant to this debate, since through Covid and the Ukrainian war all other 45 states within the human rights affiliation of the Council of Europe share with the United Kingdom the same challenge and priority within their set-back economies: the protection of vulnerable people and families.
I am grateful to my noble friend for affirming within the Explanatory Notes of this Bill that, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, in his view the provisions of the Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council of Europe.
In this connection, it should be recalled that over 60 years ago the United Kingdom ratified the European Social Charter of the Council of Europe. Your Lordships will be aware that, since then, the UK has accepted all provisions in the fields of health, social security and social protection. The only exceptions are Articles 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4 on the right to social security and Article 4 of the additional protocol on the right of elderly persons to social protection. The adoption of the Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill now provides us with a good opportunity also to accept Article 12 of the European Social Charter and Article 4 of its additional protocol. I hope that my noble friend may be able to agree to that.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. I noted everything that he said, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that, while it would be churlish not to welcome the Bill, such a welcome must be qualified. A year ago, as she reminded us, there were lots of objections—including from me—to the level of the increase, particularly in view of the rising rate of inflation and its projected peak.
As the Minister said a moment ago, the aim is to get financial support to those most in need. I think that is an objective we would all subscribe to. However, while the Bill helps over 8 million families across the country at a time of rapid increases in the cost of living, some households are excluded from support. One category is sanctioned universal credit recipients, the vast majority of whom have missed an appointment for a variety of reasons. To qualify for the cost of living payment, a claimant has to be entitled to some payment, however small, in the month preceding the qualifying date for that additional payment. If they are sanctioned, they have no payment, and yet those people have an underlying entitlement.
It was estimated that, last year, well over 6,500 households across the UK did not receive a cost of living payment. This problem was known about a year ago, and I find it surprising that a solution has not yet been found by the department because the people who are affected by this are, by their very nature, vulnerable. It is difficult to see why this problem needs to exist when solutions are available. Why can the qualifying period not be extended from one month to two? That way, those who enter employment with an immediate increase in pay would not receive the payment but those who do need it would get it. Is it necessary to add to the problems of a universal credit recipient who is already sanctioned by giving them the additional penalty of being disqualified from the extra payment during a cost of living crisis? I do not think it is right for a universal credit recipient to be punished twice.
Further, what are the Government’s plans to help those with fluctuating incomes, such as receiving a one-off bonus in the qualifying period? I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, saying that, in the Commons, there had been a debate about the qualifying period and the number of payments; it was suggested that if there were three payments in the course of the year then, broadly speaking, that would reduce the chances of success of someone losing out. The difficulty is that some did lose out in the last year—some 6,500 households did. It seems that the simpler answer is to move to a two-month qualifying period. Can the Minister give an explanation as to why that does not seem to be on the Government’s agenda?
I remind the Minister that it was a year ago that these issues became clear. I feel that the opportunity was there then to address some of those concerns about the Bill. Is there any procedural override within the system—perhaps at a local level—to help those who are facing substantial financial pressures?
Finally, the point has been made about the start date for the first instalment. I find it very odd that that date is still not publicly known. Over the weekend, I saw in the press that this matter has been questioned. If I was on a very low income and was very dependent on the support, I would really want to be able to plan better than people are currently able to. I hope the Government can give some reassurance on the matter this evening.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lady Lister for her contribution, which makes my job of inadequately filling in for my noble friend Lady Sherlock much easier. My noble friend posed many of the key questions, which I will try not to repeat.
On these Benches we of course welcome this Bill for what it is, and for the much-needed help it will provide to families up and down the country who are encountering some of the toughest financial conditions in a generation. The OBR has confirmed that the hit to living standards over the past two years is the largest since records began: inflation in recent months has reached a 40-year high; food rose by 16.8% over the past year to January 2023; gas and energy prices have risen to levels we would have thought unthinkable only two years ago; and wages, which are lower in real terms than they were 13 years ago, are expected to remain below 2008 levels until 2026. The gap between income and expenditure for many people who were already struggling before has now hit breaking point and is causing very real hardship.
Those in receipt of benefits and pensions are some of the hardest hit. Although the payments in the Bill recognise this fact, taken alone they represent a highly inadequate one-off provision that simply will not touch the sides of the deep crisis forcing families to choose between food and heating, and wrecking the physical and mental well-being of families up and down the country.
The Bill is rightly being criticised in the same way that its predecessor was, with the addition of how disappointing it is that the Government have not addressed the issues that Members across both Houses raised last time, and which have been raised again by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lady Lister in their speeches. Last year, the previous Minister argued that help needed to be delivered swiftly. If the Government are committed to bringing short-term support through this one-off provision, they should have taken the time to bring in changes to make the support more effective this time round. They could also tell us when the first payment might be due.
A flat payment cannot take into account a range of circumstances that effect someone’s needs, with household size being the most obvious one. Children in larger families are at far greater risk of living in poverty. Over the summer, academics at the University of York estimated that 90% of large families would be experiencing fuel poverty at the start of this year. The cliff edge involved in these payments, which has been referred to by my noble friend, is also incredibly concerning.
Linking this cost of living payment to the receipt of means-tested benefits means a sharp cut-off for anyone earning above the limit. Being £1 over the threshold should not mean missing out on £900; that is a huge disincentive for people who might otherwise look to take on more hours or look for better-paid work to lift themselves off universal credit. The number of payments was increased from last year from two to three, but has the Minister considered increasing the spread of payments further in order to reduce this cliff edge?
The Bill will not sew up the holes growing ever larger in our social security net, but the £900 will be welcomed as an increase on last year’s payment. However, the £150 payment for those in receipt of certain disability benefits has stayed the same, despite the huge increase in inflation. Can the Minister explain why this payment has not also been increased?
There are other good questions about the Bill that need to be and have been raised. Having a one-month assessment period for recipients means some may not qualify in a specific month—which I think has also been referred to—because of the way they are paid. This same issue was raised last year with the previous Bill. Does the Minister have any information from last year on how many people who are paid every four weeks missed out last year on receiving payments because of the short assessment period? Does the Minister have a similar answer for those who are self-employed but will miss out because of the operation of the minimum-income floor? Again, this was raised last year. We were told that the payments were an admittedly blunt instrument that needed to be got through quickly—that argument works less well a year later.
These payments are welcome as a one-off help, and so we are happy to support them in that capacity, but we need to make it crystal clear that they are not a long-term solution that will reform our social security net, address our broken labour market and fix the dire living standards that are dragging families down. Anything less is simply papering over the cracks.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contribution to today’s debate. This is significant legislation that will provide support to low-income and vulnerable households across the country, and I am delighted at the progress we have made today to move this Bill forward. I start by echoing the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock; I too wish her a very swift return.
I am grateful for the support—perhaps qualified support would be a better way of putting it—from Peers for today’s Bill. The cost of living payments we are providing for will make a significant difference to the lives of low-income families across the country. Millions of people on means-tested benefits will soon gain from the first payment, in the spring. I will pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, as to when the first payments will be made. They will both be disappointed because, although I cannot give more detail today, I can assure both Peers that we will release details of when we plan to make payments to the vast majority of recipients on GOV.UK when these are available. Perhaps I can be helpful by saying that we aim to do this very soon.
I recognise that we may not always agree on the detailed design of the payments, but I know that we are united on the need to take action to support people with the increased costs of living. Our priority has always been to safeguard the swift and accurate delivery of these payments to those who need them. I will pick up on some points made by several Peers, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who asked about the adequacy of what we are doing. She will know that inflation is forecast to remain high in the next few months, which means that many people will continue to need additional support with the cost of essentials. The Bill will enable the delivery of very significant additional support worth almost £9 billion in 2023-24.
It is important to remember that these payments are just one element of the measures announced by the Chancellor in November and in the Budget last week. We intend to uprate benefits and the state pension by 10.1% from April and to increase the benefit cap by 10.1%, as the House will know. In the Spring Budget the Chancellor set out a package of measures designed to support people to enter work and increase their working hours, including an increase in childcare support and doing more to close the disability employment gap, which I alluded to earlier this afternoon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, raised the £900 payment, and I want to follow up on that. The cost of living payments are one part of the package of support, as I have mentioned, which includes, as I have not said yet, maintaining the energy price guarantee at £2,500 for a further three months from April, and the extension, as mentioned earlier, of the household support fund.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked an important question about those with fluctuating earnings and who are assessed monthly. Whichever eligibility period is chosen, there will always be some people who will not qualify during that period. That is why we decided to deliver the cost of living payments for means-tested benefit claimants in three separate payments over the 2023-24 period, to reduce the chance of households missing out altogether, which is a theme I may well return to.
We have carefully considered the position of those with fluctuating earnings. Unfortunately, it is not feasible to distinguish between people with permanent changes to their earnings and those with temporary fluctuations due to non-monthly earnings; for example, those who are paid on a four-weekly basis.
My noble friend Lord Dundee and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, raised a number of issues relating to the payments. On the flat-rate payments, it may be helpful for me to explain that these payments are being made using the department’s ad hoc payment system, which has some limitations, including that it can make only one payment “type” at a time, of a single value. In practice, staggering payments according to household size would be administratively challenging and would delay making payments to millions of vulnerable people. Of course, families on means-tested benefits will gain from our planned uprating by 10.1% from April. This includes families who are subject to the benefit cap, which is also increasing by 10.1%, as I mentioned earlier. As I have said, for families who need additional help, we are extending the household support fund in England throughout 2023-24.
I will touch briefly on carers, raised, I believe, by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I, too, recognise the vital contribution made by those who care for some of the most vulnerable in our society. We are focusing support on those carers who need it most. Around 480,000 carer households on universal credit already receive around an extra £2,000 a year through the carer element. I therefore encourage all carers on a low income to check that they have applied for all the benefits they are entitled to, including means-tested support. Although carer’s allowance is not a means-tested benefit, we know that 60% of working-age carers who receive carer’s allowance also claim an income-related benefit; this means that they should also be eligible for the cost of living payment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised the issue of communication. The household support fund guidance makes it mandatory for local authorities to make public their plans for the scheme, including how and when they will deliver the application-based element of their provision. As she may know already, it is also mandatory for local authorities to establish a dedicated and accessible webpage on their main authority website which sets out the details of their local scheme. I hope this helps the noble Baroness.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about addressing the so-called hard edges, noble Lords said that we have had plenty of time. They will know that in 2022, we delivered tens of millions of payments successfully by keeping the rules for these payments as simple as possible. Although we have carefully considered our position on these issues for 2023-24, any major changes would introduce complexity, risking delays to payments, or introduce unacceptable levels of fraud or error. That is a really important point to make.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, stated that our support is too late. I acknowledge that many families have struggled this financial year with the 3.1% uprating, but the Government have made substantial support available to households this winter. This includes, as mentioned earlier: the energy price guarantee, which has been extended; the £400 discount provided through the energy bills support scheme; the £324 means-tested cost of living payment made in November; the £300 top-up to winter fuel payments; and, as mentioned—I will mention it once more—the household support fund.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised some other points about the payments. I think I have answered this point, but there is a very good reason why we are splitting the three payments for people on means-tested benefits, which is—as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—to ensure that we cover those who are missing out. That is an incredibly important point to make.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about extending the eligibility period. Extending the window extends the amount of time between eligibility and payment. In this period, some people will experience changes of circumstance, including some who will permanently increase their earnings and will now be ineligible for means-tested benefits unless they are in need of support. That is the answer I would give to her.
I have answered the question on flat-rate payments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked why we are excluding those with no universal credit award due to a sanction; I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also raised this issue. They will both know that people are sanctioned only if they fail, without good reason, to meet the conditions that they agreed to. These sanctions can often be resolved quickly by claimants getting in touch and attending their next appointment. If someone with no universal credit award due to a sanction re-engages with us, they may get one of the later cost of living payments. I should make the case, however, that it is down to individuals to be in touch on a regular basis and to make sure that they can keep their appointments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about the evaluation. I know that she has asked about it before in previous debates in this House; I note her eagerness to see it. We are still in the planning stages of our evaluation. We will come back to the House as soon as possible with further detail; I am afraid that that is the very best I can do this evening.
My noble friend Lord Dundee and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about splitting the payments; my noble friend indicated that this was suggested by the Treasury Select Committee. I may have covered this earlier, but we need to balance spreading support across the year with ensuring that we have enough time to deliver each payment without compromising core benefit delivery. As mentioned earlier, these payments are being made using our ad hoc payment system; that is perhaps a different way of saying the same thing, but I appreciate noble Lords’ questions.
I hope that I have covered the majority of the questions that were asked. As ever, I will look closely at Hansard to make sure, as I always like to do, that answers have been given to all the points that were raised.
To conclude, let me say that, as I said at the outset, I believe that this Bill provides substantial cost of living support, as announced by the Government over the past year, and the additional support announced at the Budget. It demonstrates our ongoing commitment to supporting the most vulnerable in our society. I am very pleased that we can now move quickly to start making these vital payments. Once again, I commend this Bill to the House.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 20th 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-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee - (20 Mar 2023)
Lord Moylan
“Traffic emission road charging schemes(1) This section relates to schemes under which drivers are charged for using roads within a specified zone (affected roads) according to the traffic emissions of the vehicle concerned.(2) A devolved authority may only introduce such a scheme if, before the scheme is introduced, consent to the introduction of the scheme is granted by all local authorities which have affected roads within their boundaries.(3) In considering whether to grant consent under subsection (2), the relevant local authorities must have regard to their duties in relation to air quality under section 83A of the Environment Act 1995 (duties of English local authorities in relation to designated areas).(4) Where consent is sought under subsection (2), the question of whether to grant consent must be considered by the relevant local authority in full Council.(5) Where such a scheme has been introduced by a devolved authority before the coming into force of this section, the devolved authority must request consent to the continuation of the scheme from all local authorities which have affected roads within their boundaries.(6) In considering whether to grant consent under subsection (5), the relevant local authorities must have regard to their duties in relation to air quality under section 83A of the Environment Act 1995 (duties of English local authorities in relation to designated areas).(7) Where consent is sought under subsection (5), the question of whether to grant consent must be considered by the relevant local authority in full Council. (8) Where consent is sought under subsection (5) and not granted, the devolved authority must cease to implement the scheme within three months of the decision not to grant consent.(9) In this section—“devolved authority” means—(a) Transport for London,(b) the Mayor of London, or(c) the Mayor of a Combined Authority;“local authority” means—(a) a district council,(b) a county council, or(c) a London borough council.”
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 176, I will speak also to Amendment 178B, both of which are in my name; I am grateful to the noble Lords who have given them their support.
In our discussion of the Bill, we have had much debate on the powers of mayoral authorities and the balance between upper-tier authorities—local authorities, regional authorities and mayoral authorities—and those lower down the chain. These amendments continue that debate in a different way. With noble Lords’ agreement, I will start by speaking to Amendment 178B; I will come to Amendment 176 after that.
Amendment 178B is very brief and technical but has quite a lot of effect. It amends the Greater London Authority Act to allow the assembly to amend the mayor’s budget by an absolute majority, rather than requiring a two-thirds majority, as now. Although it is drafted to apply to London, if granted this would have a wider effect, because there are other metropolitan mayoral authorities with similar arrangements for the scrutiny and passing of a mayoral budget. I will speak about London, from my experience, and the other matters can be taken later.
When the Blair Government set up the Greater London Authority through the 1999 Act, they were wedded to the idea that it should have a very strong mayor—a sort of Nietzschean super-figure bestriding the capital and, crucially for our purposes, able to impose his or her own budget on London, even if opposed by a majority in the elected assembly. No reason was ever given for this, as far as I understand, and it entailed a significant denial of the norms of democracy. When he was mayor, Ken Livingstone, who had a certain sense of irony, used to sit in the public gallery of the assembly when his budget was being debated. Every time he lost a vote and there was a majority against, he would give a little chuckle and declare a triumph, because although 50% or even 60% of the members were voting against that provision in his budget, it had no effect because they could not achieve a two-thirds majority.
When it was set up, it was explained that the Greater London Authority’s powers were strictly limited to it being a strategic authority for London; it was not meant to be a delivery authority. The mayor did operate four functional bodies in addition: Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police, the fire and rescue authority and the London Development Agency. Although the architecture around the development agency later changed slightly, that position remained. However, the powers of the mayor have increased very significantly. As the Government have made clear in discussion on this Bill, the intention is to increase the powers of mayors in other parts of the country as part of their devolution and levelling-up approach.
We are seeing mayors accumulate more powers and larger budgets. For example, the Mayor of London is now responsible for the housing budget for London, which is billions-plus. These powers are being accumulated but the co-decision and scrutiny functions that go with them are not being kept up to date. In fact, the Government recognise this. It may not be government policy yet, but I even saw in a newspaper that the Government were speculating on increasing the scrutiny of elected mayors by setting up panels of local MPs to scrutinise what they were going to do. There is no need to do this: the assembly exists. The scrutiny body is there already: it needs empowerment, which this amendment provides. I am putting a burden on my noble friend by inviting her to explain why we should be denying democracy in our great cities and urban areas—such a burden that quite possibly she will decide to agree with me. I look forward to that very much indeed.
Turning to the question of balance of powers, we come to Amendment 176, which is drafted to cover the whole country and is not specific to London. However, I will speak of it in London terms because of my own experience and allow noble Lords to draw parallels with other areas. It relates to the ULEZ charge—a power the mayor has in fact had since the foundation of the Greater London Authority; road user charging was in the Greater London Authority Act as far back as 1999. It has been expanded in geographical terms. Under Ken Livingstone, it was small and very focused. There was a low emission zone around Heathrow Airport and a congestion charge around just the very centre of London. It has been expanded to include not only inner London, which has already been delivered, but outer London as well—the current proposal—into areas wholly different from inner London and best understood by their own elected councils. Yet, they have no say.
This amendment would give councils that say, not just in London but in other parts of the country. It would give a power of co-decision with local councils in the extension of a road user charging scheme—ULEZ in this case. It would require that that decision be made in full council. It would not be a decision of the executive arm—for example, the cabinet or the locally elected mayor. It would also be retrospective, so that existing schemes would have to be subject to such a vote in order to continue. It would also ensure that local councils have regard to their air quality duties under the Environment Act when making their decisions. Nobody is in favour of poor air quality; it is a question of how to get there.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, not least for taking me down memory lane. He began by describing the Greater London Authority Act. I had the honour, and sometimes the pleasure, of taking that Bill through this House from the Front Bench, along with my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I remember the debates very well indeed. The noble Lord’s references to the prospective Mayor Livingstone were slightly wide of the mark. As I recall, the then Labour Government were terrified of the threat of Mayor Livingstone—and it was a threat as far as they were concerned. We spent much of our debate on the Greater London Bill discussing measures to reduce his powers. However, we should not divert too much into history.
I welcome Amendment 178B, on the budget. As it happens, when we were doing the Greater London Bill, I was the leader of a London borough council. I was certainly the only council leader in the Lords, and perhaps the only one in Parliament at that time. I went on to lead the Liberal Democrats on the Greater London Authority for its first eight years. I remember only too well the first eight years of Mayor Livingstone’s budget. Never once did he come close to getting majority support for it. It was always passed, because it had to be, but always without the two-thirds majority to amend it.
That has continued to be the case throughout the life of the Greater London Authority. In both of the last two years, in the preceding debate on the budget—it is a two-stage process—there was not even majority support for the mayor’s budget. When it came to the all-important final decision, a two-thirds majority was not there. So I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said about the need for some democracy there and that the practice for majority support for a budget should apply, as it does virtually everywhere else.
I move now to what I call the ULEZ amendment, although it is not strictly speaking a ULEZ amendment. The expansion of the ULEZ to outer London is hugely controversial in outer London at the moment. I should declare an interest, as I was a leader of a London borough council for 13 years—incidentally, a London borough council that has been under Liberal Democrat control for the last 37 years and has won the last 10 elections with a majority, so we must be doing something right there.
ULEZ is hugely controversial and is causing a lot of upset. This amendment is not about the particular proposals for its expansion; it is more about the relationship between the London boroughs and the mayor. That needs to work on a form of consensus. The mayor has the strategic authority, as you cannot deal with a subject as important as air pollution on only a borough-by-borough basis. It must of course be dealt with on a London-wide basis, in this case, so from that point of view I am wholly in agreement. However, the borough and the borough councils have to do the mechanics and implementation, and they are getting most of the heat from the objections here.
I could all too easily divert myself into talking about the shortcomings of the mayor’s present proposals, but I do not want to. I say that as someone from a council that strongly supports any measures that will genuinely reduce air pollution and tackle that issue. But the way the consultation was conducted and the way the implementation is being proposed owe everything to the mayor’s awareness of the timetable he has to meet before the next mayoral election—he wants the expansion firmly embedded in good time before May 2024—and nothing to good common sense.
This amendment is actually about the relationship between the Mayor of London and the borough councils, particularly their leaders. I was very much minded to put my name to this amendment, but I did not do so and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, knows why: I think that proposed new subsection (2) is wrong. It says that
“before the scheme is introduced, consent to the introduction of the scheme is granted by all local authorities”
within the affected area. That gives any one authority the power to veto, in effect, the whole scheme. That is simply wrong.
Lord Moylan (Con)
With every possible respect for the noble Lord, would he accept that it would in fact allow the mayor to tailor the scheme to include those boroughs that are willing to have it and exclude those that are not? It would not veto the entire scheme for other boroughs that wished to see it implemented as the mayor had proposed.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I accept that a mayor, were he or she so minded, could act in that way. However, I have to say that the current mayor has shown no interest whatever in conceding anything to any of the boroughs, let alone to one single borough. We could get to a state in which the mayor allows one borough—I will not name one, although Bromley comes to mind, remembering the trouble we had with the introduction of the Freedom Pass—to opt out and the mayor could accept that, but I would not want to put that responsibility on some future mayor.
It would be much better if we stuck to the majority principle that we were talking about just now; the boroughs should have the right themselves to opt out of the scheme. I would hope that they would not do so, but they could have the right to opt themselves and their area out of it, but not the right to either stop it for everywhere else or rely on the benevolence of the mayor—little of which we have seen recently—to opt that borough out. So a much better way would be to reword the amendment. I suspect that the noble Lord is not going to press this to a vote tonight, although a lot of people in London think he is: much better that we come back on Report with clearer, better wording to try to achieve what we want to do.
I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, that what this amendment is actually about is the relationship between an executive Mayor of London—in a sense, a presidential system—and the borough councils, which are essentially a parliamentary system. Nobody has given enough thought, and there are many other examples, to how we match the mismatch between a presidential and parliamentary system. We have a situation now where the boroughs are all, in a sense, elected parliamentary bodies, with borough council leaders playing an increasing role through London Councils in the running of London, and a presidential-style elected mayor who has all the power vested in the mayor, with none vested in the boroughs and none, for that matter, vested in the London Assembly either. I say that with some regret after serving as an assembly member—indeed, as the leader of the Liberal Democrat group there—for eight years.
I hesitate today to ask for a reconsideration of the government of London—I am not sure I would want to go through all of that again—but that is, in essence, what this amendment is about. If we can agree a slightly different form of wording for this to come back on Report, I should be happy then to give it my support.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak only to Amendment 178B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in the interests of embracing an extraordinarily rare consensus. It would be ideal, for the Green group, for my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, former London Deputy Mayor and long-time London Assembly member, to be here, but unfortunately she is otherwise engaged, so you get me, a resident through many of the years that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was talking about. I say “embracing a rare consensus” with enthusiasm, because I was buoyed last week by the fact that we saw the Government table their own amendment to the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill following a Report stage at which the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, had put down an amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I had both signed it, and that actually ended up in law. So, you never know; maybe the same kind of unusual consensus of the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Greenhalgh, the Greens, the Lib Dems and others all backing Amendment 178B might get to the same outcome. We can but hope.
I think the case has already been very strongly made for this: this is democracy. But I just want to make one additional point, which is that the London Assembly is, of course, elected through a proportional system, so the majority there reflects the views of the majority of the public. That is unlike local authorities, which are elected by first past the post systems yet need only a simple majority to overrule the administration’s budget.
We heard a lot in our debates on the Bill earlier today about tidying up and fixing up past inequities and infelicities; well, this would be a real democratic addition and a real tidying up. I entirely back the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and all the others who have signed this amendment. Let us see where we can get with it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 176, in particular, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Greenhalgh. Beyond the focus of the amendment on low emission zones, I think in this Bill—which promotes, after all, outsourcing a range of decisions to greater numbers of local and regional bodies—one area where local authority decisions are clashing not just with mayors but with local citizens, in terms of their needs and wants, is in restricting and controlling people’s car use and movement, in the name of tackling the supposed triple threats of air pollution, climate change and congestion.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I want briefly to point to what I regard as the principle behind all the discussion that we have had tonight; that is, the difference between the powers of the London mayor and the way they were established, as opposed to those of combined authority or metropolitan district council mayors being established by the Bill.
There are lessons to be learned. All through the debate on the devolution clauses in the Bill, some of us have been consistent in pointing out that mayors attracting more individual powers to themselves—by adding the roles of the police and crime commissioner and fire and rescue, for example—will end in tears, as will this. Our local democracy depends on hearing the voices of, in this case, other borough leaders—and, in the case of combined authority mayors, of leaders in those areas and others—and then coming to a decision based on what they have heard. The minute you get individuals who believe they can make a decision without reference to the views of others, trouble ensues. I urge the Minister to refrain from those aspects of the Bill that seek to accumulate power to a single person. It may look good on paper, but it will not work well in practice.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate. I will concentrate on Amendment 176 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—and I thank him for clearly introducing both his amendments—because I want to focus on why traffic emissions are so problematic and on the issues around air quality, which basically underpin what we are talking about here.
As we have heard, the amendment proposes that a devolved authority—Transport for London, the Mayor of London or the mayor of a combined authority—could introduce a road-charging scheme only if all local authorities with roads in scope consented to the scheme. We also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about concerns regarding a potential veto on this, and I agree with him on that.
For road-charging schemes already in operation, however, it occurs to me that consent would need to be retrospectively sought, which is also a concern. If consent were not granted, the local authority would have three months to end the scheme. In considering whether to grant that consent, local authorities, as the noble Lord said, would need to have regard to their duties relating to air quality as defined under the Environment Act 1995.
Noble Lords have mentioned the Greater London Authority Act 1999, under which transport is a devolved matter—in London, primarily the responsibility of the mayor and Transport for London. They have the power to make decisions relating to road-charging schemes such as the one that would be affected by the amendment. The road network does not align with borough boundaries, of course, so it is not possible to implement road-charging schemes based on which boroughs support them. That is one of the reasons why Parliament granted the power to make decisions on London-wide road-charging schemes to the mayor. The Government have said that there are no plans to review the provisions within the GLA Act, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that today.
The ULEZ scheme has been mentioned, and that would clearly be affected by the amendment if it went through. It is worth noting that 85% of vehicles seen driving in outer London already meet the required emissions standards and therefore would not be liable for the new charge. As I said at the beginning, though, I want to look at air quality, particularly around related illness and death from air pollution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 176, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, would change the local consents required for traffic emission road-charging schemes to be introduced, and apply these new requirements retrospectively. I reassure the Committee that this amendment is not necessary for regions outside London as it maintains the status quo. In London, the amendment as drafted could remove established devolved powers from an elected mayor and as we have discussed in Committee, this is not our intention for devolution.
In London, under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 the mayor has the authority to create a new road scheme that charges users, or vary one, so long as doing so will directly or indirectly facilitate the achievement of the policies and proposals in the mayor’s transport strategy. As drafted, this amendment could be in conflict with the Greater London Authority Act, and it would potentially create legal uncertainty and conflict between the mayor and the London borough councils.
The Department for Transport has not made statements in support of the ULEZ: Transport Ministers have been completely clear that this has been a matter for the mayor to decide. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been engaging and will continue to engage with MPs whose constituents may be impacted by the proposed ULEZ expansion.
Outside London, charging schemes have been introduced for addressing congestion issues, improving air quality and raising funds for investment in new transport infrastructure and improving transport quality. The Transport Act 2000 already sets out how road-charging schemes can be introduced. In combined authority areas, these powers are held between the combined authority and the local traffic authorities—that is, the constituent authorities of the CA. Therefore, outside London local authorities are already required to introduce schemes and existing legislation already delivers what this amendment seeks to achieve.
Additionally, the amendment would require the reconfirmation of a number of existing charging schemes and it would allow any local authority unilaterally to revoke them. These schemes have been introduced and agreed locally and, where they cover multiple local authorities, agreed jointly. Decisions on whether to amend or revoke these schemes would therefore also be made jointly, as the powers in the Transport Act 2000 already ensure. I nevertheless recognise how important this issue is not only to my noble friend but to many others, and not just in London. I am happy to meet with him to discuss these matters further.
Amendment 178B, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, seeks to lower the threshold for amending the Mayor of London’s final draft budget from two-thirds of assembly members present and voting to a simple majority. While the amendment would undoubtedly strengthen the power of the London Assembly and mirror the voting threshold applied at earlier stages of the assembly’s consideration of the mayor’s annual budget, it must also be balanced against the benefits of the current strong mayoral model in London. I agree with my noble friend that it is crucial in any of these systems that we have strong audit and scrutiny. That is why the Bill strengthens both audit and scrutiny committees in these new authorities.
I recognise my noble friend’s interest in and experience of London governance matters and I would be pleased, as I say, to engage with him not only on his earlier amendments but these. Perhaps we might review the operation of London’s devolution settlement separately from the Committee’s consideration of the Bill, and I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment at this time.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for what was a very valuable debate and I shall briefly go through those who spoke.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, put his finger on it by saying that this is really a question that will not go away: about the balance of powers in areas that have strong regional government—combined authorities, metropolitan mayors and so forth—with the local councils, the constituent councils. As my noble friend the Minister made clear, those arrangements differ in different parts of the country, but we have to learn lessons from them and apply those lessons in an evolving way to existing structures; we cannot just dig our heels in and say that what was good in 1999 is good for ever. We have to be able to improve things; we understood that. On the question of subsection (2), I had a strong sense, listening to the noble Lord, that we were actually in violent agreement, but I am going to speak to him afterwards to discover if there is a difference between us and what can be done to reconcile our understanding of the boundary issue.
I was very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I give some credit to the Green Party here as an example of what can be achieved by a more democratic scrutiny of the mayor’s budget. Only a few weeks ago, in consideration of the mayor’s budget the Green Party put forward in the assembly a costed amendment that would have required the mayor to introduce lavatories at up to 70 London stations. It got a majority in the London assembly; it was supported by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats; of course, it fell. Having a majority is not enough in this sort of democracy. There is something very strange about that; however, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, was right to point out that the weakness of process and the rushing of air quality measures is provoking a backlash and cynicism among the voters. She also expressed very well the genuine and real suffering of those who face the prospect of the current proposed ULEZ scheme in London. I have to be honest: what I would expect if this amendment were passed is not that boroughs would actually block a mayoral scheme to introduce a ULEZ; they would moderate it, because they too are interested in better air quality, and so are local people. They would have their say, so it would be introduced in a slower and more manageable way, with more local consensus and better support for those who are in need of making what can be a very expensive transition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, drew on a very long experience of local government again to put her finger on the question of the democratic deficit. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made it abundantly clear that the Labour Party stands four-square behind the Labour mayor’s proposal to impose a ULEZ on outer London; there was not one word of criticism.
She mentioned the estimate of 4,000 premature deaths in London. I do not dispute that figure, but it is difficult to know what it means: is a premature death 10 years before you would have died or a week before? These are difficult figures to interpret, but that figure I regard as reliable and I am not disputing it in any way. However, I want to point out is that when I was deputy chairman of Transport for London—a post that came to an end in 2016—and on the board, the figure was also 4,000. The measures are introduced—the local traffic neighbourhoods, the ULEZes—but the estimated figure never changes. So is it really doing any good?
Lord Northbrook
“Local authority consultations: code of practice(1) Within 6 months after this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice for public consultations by local authorities.(2) The code must recommend ways to ensure impartiality, including having consultation conducted by an independent third party, and having consultation materials and process pre-approved by such a party.”
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to take part in the Second Reading of the Bill.
Amendment 177 proposes the preparation of a code of practice for consultation by local authorities and public bodies on contentious matters to ensure that they are impartial and not manipulative—which follows on well from the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on the last amendment.
Conservatives used to criticise Ken Livingstone, as leader of the GLC, for conducting bogus consultations designed to justify whatever decisions he had already made. Unfortunately, there have been a number of serious examples of similar behaviour by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea affecting the area of the borough in which I live—I declare my interest. I will mention here just two. The first was a council scheme to turn Sloane Square into a crossroads, when two bogus consultations were held that purported to show widespread support for the scheme. The council was pressurised to hold a third consultation, conducted impartially by an independent third party, that showed that 72% of respondents were opposed to the scheme, which was then dropped.
The second was the Cadogan Estates scheme to have dedicated parking bays created outside its high-end designer shops in Sloane Street. This was taken up by the council and rebranded as a scheme to “improve the public realm”. Among the manipulative consultation materials, to give but one example, was a question on whether people wanted “more trees and planting”, which was welcomed because people generally like more trees. The result of this is that Cadogan now has permission to disfigure the street with 52 ugly “planters”—work on which has now started.
The request that the consultation be conducted impartially by an independent third party—failing which, the local residents’ associations wished to review and comment on the consultation materials in draft form—was ignored. The response of the Minister in the other place in a letter of 31 August last year to Richard Drax MP was as follows:
“On consultations by local authorities and public bodies, the Government has been clear that communities must be at the heart of the planning process. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, as introduced into Parliament, will reform the process for producing plans so that it is faster and easier for communities to engage with. The Bill will increase and enhance the opportunities for involvement to ensure that development is brought forward in a way that works best for local people”.
The Minister’s response does not address the problem, perhaps because the central Government and all their predecessors like to be able to hold bogus consultations just as much as local authorities and public bodies. I suggest that His Majesty’s Government be obliged to draw up a code of practice for such consultations to ensure impartiality, either by having them conducted or having the consultation materials and process pre-approved by an independent third party.
Amendment 178 seeks to amend the legislation on business improvement districts, or BIDs, so that residents have a say in their establishment, policies and management bodies. There has been widespread criticism of the undemocratic way in which BIDs are established and operate. The Government’s website says:
“There is no limit on what projects or services can be provided through a BID. The only requirement is that it should be in addition to services provided by local authorities”.
As a result, powerful local businesses can push through projects for their own commercial benefit, for which they are willing to pay. My area, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, is happy to agree to them if they can be described as “improving the public realm”. Local residents may be affected by these projects—for example, streetscape, parking and traffic management—but cannot influence them.
We have recently had imposed on us two new BID schemes led by the Cadogan Estate—one for the Brompton Road, since renamed Knightsbridge, and one for the King’s Road—in which residents’ views were ignored from the outset and look likely to continue to be ignored. The Brompton Association was deliberately excluded from the BID proposal for the Brompton Road, in what seems to me a manipulative ploy and an ominous sign of things to come.
The BID legislation should be amended so that local residents of a particular ward within which a BID falls are consulted on proposals for their establishment, are represented on the BID proposal groups which prepare the business plan, participate in the vote on the establishment and are represented on BID management bodies. In addition, local planning authorities should be able to veto BID proposals if there is a significant objection from local residents, not just if they conflict with a significant policy of the local planning authority.
The response of the Minister in the other place, in the same letter that I quoted on Amendment 177, was that
“the majority of BIDs set Baseline Agreements with their local authority to demonstrate the additionality it will provide over the term of the BID. The Government encourages the use of clear agreements and the fostering of strong ongoing relationships between BID bodies and their local authorities, to make sure each is aware of their obligations towards one another and to agree changes to such agreements where appropriate. The BID itself is responsible for deciding on the mix of representatives to ensure their Governance Board is an effective decision-making body with the right skills. The legislation does not preclude local authorities from being represented on the BID board, nor residents or members of the community”.
The Minister’s written response does not answer the point. The legislation does not preclude residents from being represented on the board of a BID. However, what happens at present is that BID promoters make arrangements for their own commercial advantage and exclude resident representation, as the views of residents do not always coincide, and frequently conflict, with those of the business promoters. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I had not expected to speak in this group, but since my noble friend Lord Northbrook has referred to a number of matters in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—where I had the privilege of being deputy leader of the council for quite a period—I thought I would say just one or two things.
The current proposals for Sloane Square I have nothing to do with, I know nothing about; I ceased to be involved in the council in 2018, so I cannot speak for them. The other example my noble friend gave of what he called a “bogus consultation”, I was responsible for. Noble Lords might not be aware that this is an archaeological exercise because he has had to reach back to 2007. It is true that there were three consultation exercises, but I assure my noble friend that the first two—which supported the proposals—were not bogus at all; they were carried out in a very serious way. Indeed, the results surprised me in that there was as much support as there was. The third one that he referred to was conducted after a year of campaigning by opponents in what was quite the most unpleasant year of my life, certainly politically. It was a very long and really quite vicious campaign, all of it funded by the council so that the residents could have as much say as possible. It found against the scheme, which was not proceeded with.
Where I can find a level of agreement with my noble friend is in relation to BIDs. Here, I declare my interest in being a resident of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, as he is. I recently discovered that there is a BID to be introduced in Kensington High Street that is going to include Kensington Square, which I do not live in, but which I overlook from an adjacent street. The Kensington Square residents’ association has not been consulted about this, and it is to be introduced in Thackeray Street—which is where I do more or less live. The relevant residents’ association body for that has also not been consulted, as far as I can make out.
I think that in relation to BIDs my noble friend is putting his finger on a very important point: they do involve a transfer of say—I do not say control—to local businesses, which will pay extra money and expect to get what they want for that extra money. That transfer—those expenditures—can have an affect on local residents, and they should have some involvement in the establishment of a BID. I did not imagine I would ever have to go down the memory lane of Sloane Square improvements again in my life, but it is good that my noble friend has brought back those not always pleasant memories. I am with him when it comes to business improvement districts.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, our Amendment 511 is in this group. This is to ask the Secretary of State to inform each local authority of any new responsibilities before the commencement of relevant provisions.
Clause 222 has the list of the commencement of relevant provisions, so the amendment sits under Clause 222. However, it refers to Clause 74, which proposes to give the Secretary of State significant powers to intervene in a local authority regarding capital finance, including limiting borrowing and/or directing a local authority to sell specific assets. Such an intervention would follow a review that could be triggered by an assessment against a specific financial formula, the thresholds for which are to be set by regulation after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
So my question to the Minister is: how can we assess the impact of this provision without knowing those thresholds, without an impact assessment, and with incomplete information? Unsurprisingly, local government has expressed concerns about this. I understand that the measures relate to government concerns about some councils’ approach to capital and borrowing, but we need to set this in context. The LGA has drawn attention to the fact that rising energy prices, rising inflation and national minimum wage pressures are set to add around £3.6 billion in unforeseen extra cost pressures on council budgets by 2024-25. This is on top of the £15 billion cuts to council budgets by central government over the previous decade. Councils are simultaneously managing significant spending reductions and a growing demand for services.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on the three amendments in this group, starting with Amendment 511 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, about capital finance controls in local government. All I would say is that every local authority is required to have an external audit by a professional audit company to undergo a thorough inspection of its finances. It seems to me that the easiest way round this issue is to extend the requirement of the external audit to include a detailed investigation of any capital financing arrangements. That would reduce or eliminate all the additional requirements in the Bill and put the requirement on the external audit company to do a thorough audit of the council’s finances. If problems are exposed, the issues can then be resolved. This would mean that other local authorities which behave prudently are not caught up in the fairly strict regime that is being proposed.
Turning briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, I totally support his Amendment 177 on improving standards of consultation for public bodies, particularly local authorities. There ought to be—I am sure there is—a standard for consultations that every public body, particularly local authorities, ought to adhere to.
On business improvement districts, I say that it is shocking to me that they could be established without full consultation and understanding by local residents. I would say, just as a point of history really, that our local councils used to have a big voice from local business. Businesses used to want to be elected to serve on their local council, where their voices could be heard and they could influence decisions that were made. Sadly, that tradition has disappeared, and there are fewer and fewer businesspeople who seek election to local authorities. This has led to the use of another way of trying to engage businesses in improving small areas such as this by giving them powers through the business improvement districts. So, yet again, these districts bypass local democracy, which is why I support the proposals in Amendment 178.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Northbrook for moving Amendment 177. I cannot respond on specific local authorities, as he may realise, but I think that noble Lords have had a good discussion about said local authorities.
Statutory frameworks and clear rules for consultation already exist in some service areas, such as planning, and provide guidance on the required length and scope of consultation. There is a statutory publicity code, which is clear that all local authority communications must be objective and even-handed. Councils can carry out non-statutory consultations to allow residents to shape local decisions and plans. Greater involvement for local people can only be a good thing, and local authorities should be free to adapt their approach based on local need and requirements for these non-statutory consultations. A requirement for all consultations to be carried out by third parties would impose additional costs on local authorities, which might encourage less consultation and engagement, rather than more. I hope that, in the light of this explanation, my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment and not press his other amendments in this group.
Amendment 178 concerns business improvement districts—or BIDs, as they are often called. It is best practice for a BID to promote its actions so that levy payers and the community can see what is being achieved. Many BIDs keep an up-to-date website and engage regularly via social media to discuss their work. BIDs are intended to be business-led, business-funded organisations. It is right that the businesses that will be required to fund the BID make the decisions on whether there should be consultations.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked about local authorities on BID boards. There are local authorities on BID boards in Birmingham, Bristol, London and Newcastle, as well as in other places.
Regarding the review of BID arrangements, as I have said, the legislation does not preclude residents and members of the community from being consulted on a BID proposal or represented on a BID board. Many authorities are on BID boards in their local areas. We are not looking to review business improvement districts; in fact, we are looking closely at work that is being done on community improvement districts, which include community groups, local people and businesses. That work is being run by Power to Change, and we are keeping a close eye on the pilots and following them with interest.
Amendment 511, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would apply across the Bill and would require the Secretary of State to give local authorities advance notice where provisions creating new responsibilities for them are to be commenced. In any circumstances, those gaining new responsibilities should be aware of them in good time. However, we do not consider that this amendment is needed. As I hope has been clear from our responses earlier in the debate, the Government entirely agree on the importance of collaboration with local authorities for our reforms to be successful. We are already working with local authorities on many of our reforms and will continue to do so. I can therefore confirm that the Government have no intention of introducing responsibilities for local authorities without the appropriate preparation, including supporting them both to understand those responsibilities and to manage any transition. In many cases, this work will include further consultation with local authorities and others to shape regulations and inform supporting guidance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked a couple of questions. I will look at those and give her a written answer. I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not press their amendments.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate on my amendments. I seemed to have good support on Amendment 178 from the Labour Front Bench and the Lib Dems, but my Front Bench did not seem keen at all. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for his experience and memory regarding my consultation comments on Amendment 177. I would like to have a word with him on this outside the Chamber afterwards. I am sorry for the personal abuse he may have suffered, which is entirely unnecessary.
I will read Hansard carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Naseby
“Voting restrictions in local authority housing matters relating to City of LondonIn section 618 of the Housing Act 1985 (Common Council of the City of London), omit subsections (3) and (4).”Member's explanatory statement
This Clause removes a restriction applying uniquely to the City of London Corporation’s Common Council members which prevents them from voting in local authority housing matters where they have a pecuniary interest. It brings them into line with the regime for such interests which applies to councillors of local authorities under the Localism Act 2011.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to take part at Second Reading.
Amendment 178A, in my name, is about the City of London, where local authority housing functions are carried out by the City of London Corporation through its Court of Common Council. The City is subject to the same member rules governing participation in discussion or voting on local authority housing matters, where a member has a pecuniary interest, as those which apply to councillors of local authorities. These rules are contained in the Localism Act 2011.
The rules include an ability for local authorities to issue dispensations to allow councillors to participate and vote where it is right for them to do so to fulfil their democratic responsibilities. However, this ability to issue dispensation does not apply to the City because an additional provision, contained in what is now Section 618(3) and (4) of the Housing Act 1985, bans City members outright from voting on such matters. The contravention of this ban constitutes a criminal offence.
The history of the Housing Act provisions have been examined by the City’s law officers and discussed with officials, but their origin remains unexplained. They have simply been repeated without comment in successive consolidations of housing legislation over the years. My amendment seeks to address this anomaly by removing them. This will make the City of London subject to the same regime as local authorities. It is clearly only right that City residents should have the same entitlement to be represented in housing matters as applies elsewhere. I hope that my noble friend will agree. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, with apologies, and being aware of the hour, I will be brief. I oppose in the strongest terms the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
The City of London is the last rotten borough. The elections to the City of London can in no way be described as democratic. There is also the City of London cache, a massive fund amassed over many centuries and explicitly excluded from freedom of information. The last figure that I have, from 2012, is of a £100 million per year income.
The rights of the City of London go back to William the Conqueror, who said that he would maintain all the rights and privileges that the citizens had hitherto enjoyed. It is about time that we finally modernised and got past that. In 1894, it was recommended by a royal commission that the City of London Corporation be abolished. I put on the record my desire to work with any noble Lord who wishes finally to reach that obvious conclusion.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend has explained, Amendment 178A seeks to remove voting restrictions on either housing issues or related planning decisions applying uniquely to members of the common council of the City of London who are also tenants of the City of London Corporation. Sections 618(3) and (4) of the Housing Act 1985 mean that, while an individual can be a councillor of the City of London if they are a housing tenant of the corporation, they cannot apply for a dispensation to vote on housing or related planning decisions. Voting in breach of Section 618 is a criminal offence. This is not dissimilar to the regime that applies under the Localism Act 2011 which also creates a criminal offence where a member fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements to declare their disposable pecuniary interests, and takes part in council meetings.
Councillors in any authority elsewhere in England, operating under the disposable pecuniary interest regime in the Localism Act 2011, can apply for a dispensation to vote on matters where they have a declared interest—but there is no such discretion for the City of London to grant a dispensation where Section 618 applies. In short, this means that City of London councillors are being treated differently from all other councillors in England. I am aware that the City of London has raised the issue on previous occasions. I am grateful to my noble friend for his amendment. Between now and Report, I undertake to give the matter proper consideration and would be happy to arrange a discussion with my noble friend if he would find this helpful.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I willingly accept his kind offer of further discussions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.