House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I can announce the arrangements for the election of the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Nominations will close at noon on Tuesday 16 May. Nomination forms will be available from the Vote Office, Table Office and Public Bill Office. Following the House’s decision of 16 January 2020, only Members from the Conservative party may be candidates in this election. If there is more than one candidate, the ballot will take place on Wednesday 17 May between 11 am and 2.30 pm in the Aye Lobby. A briefing note with more information will be made available from the Vote Office.
Before we come to questions, I want to make it clear that while I understand that legal proceedings relating to the industrial action called by the Royal College of Nursing are active, I am prepared to allow discussion of the matter, given its national importance.
Oral Answers
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
NHS England does not routinely collect or publish data on waiting times for treatment for gender dysphoria, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that as of February this year 28,290 adults were waiting for a first appointment in England.
Mr Bradshaw
Four years on average for an initial appointment, and seven years at the south-west clinic in Exeter. With healthcare for trans people in effect non-existent, the Government planning to remove trans human rights from the Equality Act 2010, breaking their promise to ban conversion therapy and to reform the gender recognition process, and now threatening to force schools to out trans students to their parents, can the Minister see why this tiny and particularly vulnerable minority feels under attack by the Government, and that some who can afford to are even leaving the country for a less hostile environment?
Maria Caulfield
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are putting an additional £7.9 million into four new pilot gender identity clinics, because we want services to improve and waiting times to come down. The four new pilot services are now operating in Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Merseyside, East of England and London, and a new clinic will be opening in Sussex later this year. The four pilot studies have already removed 3,400 patients from the waiting list and I am hoping the fifth clinic will go further.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
The Government are committed to our levelling-up mission to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy by 2030. That is why, in October, we committed an additional £50 million to 13 local authorities to tackle inequalities and why we are also setting out our plans through the major conditions strategy.
Rob Butler
Even in areas that people consider to be affluent, such as Buckinghamshire, health inequalities can be a serious concern. Figures from Opportunity Bucks show there is an eight-year difference in life expectancy between residents of the Aylesbury North West ward and the Ridgeway East ward, both of which are in my constituency, yet the funding for those areas is essentially the same. Will my right hon. Friend explain the steps he is taking to ensure that deprived communities, wherever they are in the country, get the additional help and support—not necessarily purely financial—that they need to address their needs?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of targeting health inequalities. Let me give the House a practical example. For lung cancer, patients are 20 times more likely to survive five years if we catch it early rather than late. Before the pandemic, those in the most deprived communities had the worst diagnosis. However, as a result of the targeted action we took with lung cancer check vans, they now have the best early diagnosis, which obviously has a big read-across for the five-year survival rate.
Gavin Newlands
The UK ranks 29th in global life expectancy. Professor Martin McKee from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine notes that one reason why the overall increase in life expectancy has been so sluggish in the UK is that it has fallen for poorer groups. The Scottish Government are doing everything they can within devolved competencies to fight poverty—the Scottish child payment and so on—but Westminster controls 85% of social security. What representations has the Secretary of State made to Cabinet colleagues and the Department for Work and Pensions about the damaging effects of their policies on life expectancy?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. He can see the success of the representations I made to Cabinet colleagues from the Chancellor’s Budget statement, when he announced additional funding to tackle, in particular, health impediments to access to the labour market. He will also have seen the recent announcement of targeted action on, for example, smoking cessation, which is a particular driver of health inequalities. That includes our financial incentive scheme to pregnant mums, which obviously has a big impact on both their health and the health of their baby.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
It is becoming clear that in Cornwall the only way to get dental care is to go to a private dentist. In a deprived area, of which there are many across Cornwall, that is just not an option for people on low incomes. What can the Secretary of State do to increase the accessibility of NHS dentistry?
Steve Barclay
This issue concerns Members across the House. We have already started to reform the dental contract. We have introduced the £23 minimum value for units of dental activity and created more UDA bands, reflecting the fair cost. We are seeing more patients nationally—to March, up nearly a fifth on the year. But I recognise that there is more to do, and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), is undertaking that work as we speak.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Women in my constituency have a healthy life expectancy of only 56 years. Could the Minister explain why the difference between West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire—where the Prime Minister has his constituency—is 10 years? Why should women have to put up with that kind of experience? What is his explanation of how that has happened?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman is right that we should narrow the health inequalities gap, and we are committed to doing that. That is why in the women’s health strategy, which I set out in the summer, we committed to having women’s health hubs as one-stop shops to tackle some of the gender inequality. It is also why, whether on obesity, smoking or lung cancer, we are targeting our screening and public health interventions to close the gap, which he is quite right to highlight.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right: we should be narrowing the health inequalities in this country. It is just a shame that, on his watch, we are not. A baby born in Blackpool today will live eight years less than a baby born in Kensington. Under this Tory Government, health inequalities have widened in many parts of the country. They have scrapped their health disparities strategy and cut the number of health visitors by a third, and ordinary families are paying the price. Why does the Secretary of State not get a grip, adopt Labour’s plan to scrap the non-dom tax status and train 5,000 new health visitors, so that every child has a healthy start to life?
Steve Barclay
There is consensus in the House on our desire to close the health inequality gap—everyone agrees that is a key aim. The hon. Gentleman seems to have written the question before hearing my answer. I just gave a practical example of how we have transformed the early detection of lung cancer. He raised the public health grant, and I am happy to update the House that we are delivering 2.8% funding growth in the public health grant to help local authorities.
It is also about areas such as obesity and access to employment, which can have a big impact on mental health. The Chancellor announced specific funding—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister chunters away about children; I am conscious that one does not want too long an answer, but let me give the example of mental health. In the Budget we announced extra funding for a whole load of digital apps—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister keeps chuntering about children. Let me talk about the roll-out of our mental health support in schools, which is targeted at getting that early mental health intervention to school children.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
I recently announced new measures to tackle youth vaping, including an extra £3 million for a new enforcement squad to tackle underage sales and illicit vapes. We also launched a call for evidence to identify opportunities to reduce youth vaping, which covers everything from the appearance, marketing and price to the environmental impact of vapes.
Bob Blackman
We would all encourage people to vape instead of smoke, but we do not know the long-term health impact of vaping at all. Reports suggest that one in seven young people are taking up vaping directly and therefore becoming addicted to nicotine, the most addictive drug known to humankind. What measures will my hon. Friend take to make sure that young people understand the risks of vaping?
Neil O’Brien
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for vaping. He is right; as well as the measures I mentioned, we have updated the guidance on Talk to FRANK, to illustrate for young people the dangers of consuming lots of nicotine.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
In 2021, the Government rejected my amendment to the Health and Care Bill to tackle smoking and youth vaping. England is now set to miss the Smokefree 2030 target by at least seven years, and countless children are now addicted to vapes. I welcome the U-turn, but what steps has the Minister taken to make up that lost time?
Neil O’Brien
We are taking action across the board on smoking. I think we are in agreement on what has to be done. That is why we recently announced that we are giving vaping kits to a million smokers to help them swap to stop. We are also bringing in new health incentives for all pregnant women so that we can help them stop—that is based on good local evidence. We are taking preventative action, and I think the hon. Lady and I both want the same thing.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
This Government back social care, which is why we are giving social care a record funding boost of up to £7.5 billion over the next two years. That extra funding will help local authorities increase the rates they pay to care providers, helping those providers in turn meet extra costs and increase staff pay.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Frontline charities, such as United Response and Age UK, have responded that the Government’s plan falls far short of what is needed, including holding back the promised £250 million in social care workforce funding. Can the Minister promise that will be revisited with urgency, given that one in five over-80s have some unmet care needs and we are facing the highest social care vacancy rates on record?
Helen Whately
I can assure the hon. Member that not a penny of funding is being cut from adult social care. We are driving forward our reforms to the adult social care system, which have the workforce at their heart. We are introducing a new career path for the social care workforce, new care qualifications and new training, boosting the adult social care workforce and making sure people in that workforce get the recognition and rewards they deserve.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The Minister says this Government back social care—I would love to see what the reality would be if they were against it. We already know that the Conservatives have completely failed to deliver their flagship policy of a cap on care costs, and over Easter we learned that they have broken the rest of their promises on social care too. The £500 million promised for the care workforce has been cut in half; the £300 million promised for housing in care has been slashed by two thirds; and as for the £600 million of other promises, your guess is as good as mine, Mr Speaker. They have not had the courage to announce this to Parliament or the nous to grasp that if people are not kept in their own homes, they end up stuck in hospital, with all the knock-on consequences for NHS waiting times and emergency care. Will the Minister tell us where all that money has gone? Why on earth should older and disabled people and their families ever believe the Conservatives on social care again?
Helen Whately
Out of that, I can pick one thing we agree on: the importance of helping people to live independently at home for longer and social care as a part of that. I say to the hon. Lady, as I said a moment ago, that we have not cut a penny of funding from our commitments to adult social care, both on adult social reform and on the historic £7.5 billion of adult social care funding announced in the autumn statement. We are forging ahead with our reforms, with the workforce at their heart, because the workforce is crucial, hand in hand with the digitisation of social care, improving data, joining up health and social care, and supporting unpaid carers.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
We have the lowest smoking rate on record in England, down from 21% in 2010 to 13% now, partly because we have introduced minimum excise tax on cheap cigarettes and double duty on cigarettes, but we know we have to go further. That is why we recently announced significant new funding to help a million smokers quit, through swap to stop, and introduced a new financial incentive for pregnant women. We are also consulting on new pack inserts, similar to those in Canada.
Mark Eastwood
As someone who was able to quit smoking using nicotine patches, following the advice at last year’s Emley show, I welcome the measures announced by the Minister earlier this month to help us achieve our Smokefree 2030 target. Does the Minister agree that, in order to help even more people quit, we should continue to pursue harm reduction strategies such as swap to stop? That will ensure that we maintain our position as a world leader in public health.
Neil O’Brien
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on quitting. The swap to stop scheme that we are rolling out nationally, which is the first of its kind in the world, is based on strong local evidence. We know it works from local pilots, which is why we are rolling it out at scale.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Smoking remains the biggest preventable cause of cancer and we know that smoking cessation services are vital to kicking the habit, but smokers in England face a postcode lottery when trying to access them. What is the Minister doing to ensure that everybody who needs those services is able to access them?
Neil O’Brien
Absolutely. In total, public health grants will go up by 5% in real terms over the next two years. We want to reduce the postcode variation, because these are important services. I am keen to speak to anyone who wants to work with us at a local level.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Welcome as the UK Government’s recent announcement is to help more people in England to quit smoking, the Khan review’s key recommendation to increase investment in smokefree policies, making the polluter pay by raising tobacco duty, was not mentioned. Product duty, as we all know, is a wholly reserved matter, so what representations have been made with Cabinet colleagues about implementing that recommendation to improve public health outcomes across all four of our nations?
Neil O’Brien
I recently had a very productive meeting with my Scottish Government counterpart. As I mentioned, we have already doubled the duty on cigarettes since 2010 and have brought in a minimum tax for the cheaper cigarettes. Of course, tax is a matter for the Treasury, but we will always be interested in things that can drive down smoking.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Accessibility and choice remain high in the south-west. All but one trust in the region have a minimum of three birth options.
Wera Hobhouse
In my local council area, birthing units were closed in 2020. My constituents were promised a new midwife-led unit at the Royal United Hospital in Bath, but three years on it is still not up and running. The Minister will say that it is a funding decision for the local area, but it is an NHS England funding decision and the Government are the paymaster, so when will Bath get its midwifery unit at the RUH?
Maria Caulfield
I am very happy to contact the hon. Lady’s local commissioners to find out the answer for her. However, I highlight the fact that the £7.6 million health and wellbeing fund is funding 19 projects across England to reduce health disparities in new mothers and babies. Two of those projects are in the south-west: the Trelya in Cornwall, a community-centred whole-family provision that takes a holistic approach to working with children and their families; and the Splitz Support Service in Wiltshire, which aims to improve community knowledge, access to and engagement with pre-conception and perinatal care. We are investing in the hon. Lady’s region, but if she has a local funding issue I am very happy to speak to her local commissioning group on her behalf.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I am very glad that the maternity unit at the Royal United Hospital in Bath is rated as outstanding—we actually have very good choices in our local area. Does the Minister agree that choice is an important thing in maternity services? I am very glad that we have a first-class birthing centre in Chippenham and another in Malmesbury. One of the most important things is allowing women the choice to have the birth at home. That requires first-class midwifery support thereafter, which we also have in our area.
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely; choice is important. Only last month we published the single delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services, which I am sure Members across the House will already have read. It puts women at the heart of decision making and learns from the Ockenden and East Kent inquiries, to ensure that women have better choice when giving birth.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
The urgent and emergency care recovery plan sets out how we will invest more than £1 billion in increasing capacity, including 800 new ambulances, an additional 5,000 core beds and a further 3,000 virtual wards, to provide more than 10,000 out-of-hospital care settings.
Andrew Lewer
A key component of delivering better urgent care services will be expanding the network of urgent treatment centres across the country. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that a UTC in the major population centre of Northampton will be a high priority for the Department?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of UTCs. Nationally, they are above the national standard: 95.5% of patients are seen within four hours. He is a highly effective campaigner on health issues—he helped to secure the £2.8 million of investment for a new paediatric emergency department in his local area—and I know that he will be making a similar case to his local commissioners.
James Sunderland
Ultimately, the best way to improve urgent and emergency care services is through new build, purpose-built hospitals. Can the Secretary of State confirm where we are with the Royal Berkshire Hospital and Frimley Park?
Steve Barclay
As the House knows, I am extremely committed to modern methods of construction and modular building capacity. We are using that as a central component of our new 40 hospitals programme. My hon. Friend will know that the RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—hospitals are very much part of that discussion, not just at Frimley but at King’s Lynn, at Hinchingbrooke and in a whole range of other settings. He will also know that we are in a purdah period, so we are constrained in what we can say, but we will have more to say on this very shortly.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We have had 13 years of Conservative government. There are record numbers of patients on waiting lists, record numbers of vacancies in the NHS, and a crisis of vacancies in social care. As for emergency care, the Government cannot meet their 18-minute target for category 2 ambulance responses. If the Conservatives were really concerned about the NHS, would we not be in a better position than this after 13 years?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman talks of 13 years. People are nearly twice as likely to be waiting for treatment in the Labour-run Welsh NHS as people seeking treatment in England, and, indeed, waits are longer in Wales: we have virtually eliminated two-year waits in England, whereas more than 41,000 people in Labour-run Wales are waiting more than two years.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I recently conducted a major surgery—[Laughter]—I mean a major survey of Rotherham residents to learn about their experiences of the NHS. A staggering 73% of respondents who had called ambulances needing a category 1 response had waited longer than the seven-minute target time. Given that minutes can mean the difference between life and death, what are the Government doing to ensure that my constituents receive the life-saving support that they need, when they need it?
Steve Barclay
I know we have clinicians in the House who do second jobs, but I did not know that the hon. Lady had expanded that definition to such an extent! She is right to highlight, through her survey, the importance of timely care. There is currently a range of initiatives, such as the development of the NHS app, the review of the 111 service, and the examination of innovations such as artificial intelligence. We are looking into how we can manage demand in the case of, in particular, frail elderly people by noting changes in behaviour patterns, which will allow us to ensure that, for example, someone who has a fall at home receives care much earlier before arriving in the accident and emergency department, because we know that once frail elderly people have been admitted they will often be in hospital for about 14 days. The hon. Lady has raised an extremely important issue through her survey, and one on which we are focusing in our urgent and emergency recovery plan.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
That urgent and emergency care plan, which was announced in January, was received with acclaim by me and, indeed, with wide acclaim. It was described as a two-year plan to stabilise services by, for instance, returning to the A&E target that the Secretary of State has mentioned. What assessment has he made of the impact of the ongoing industrial dispute among the Agenda for Change cohort, and, of course, the junior doctors, on the delivery of the plan?
Steve Barclay
As a result of the fantastic work of Sir Jim Mackey and Professor Tim Briggs through the Getting It Right First Time programme, we have been making significant progress in respect of elective procedures. When it comes to urgent and emergency care, there are lessons coming out of the various strikes which we are keen to adopt, but this situation is also clearly having an impact on patients and the number of cancellations. As my hon. Friend well knows, we publish the figures.
We have been working constructively with the NHS Staff Council. Unison voted by a majority of 74% to support the deal, there will be further votes this week from other key trade unions, and there will be a decision from the staff council on 2 May. Obviously, that will be extremely important when it comes to addressing the concern highlighted by my hon. Friend.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
According to figures that I obtained recently from the House of Commons Library, in January 2023 54.4% of patients who were treated after an urgent referral received their first treatment within 62 days of that referral. The target is 85%. The figure for performance in January 2020, before covid, was 73.6%. Why has there been such a deterioration?
Steve Barclay
To be honest, I think the position is mixed. In certain areas we have seen significant improvements in performance: the faster diagnosis standard, for example, was hit for the first time this month. Purdah prevents me from going into the details of the 78-week wait, but I expect to be able to update the House very soon on the progress that has been made. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are still challenges as a consequence of the pandemic, but we are seeing much more progress than the NHS in Wales, and it is also worth reminding the House that, through Barnett consequentials, the Welsh NHS receives more funding that the NHS in England.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
This may surprise you, Mr Speaker, but I have found evidence that the Health Secretary has got something right. He recently hailed the power of local news outlets, and he was spot on. I have here a story from his local paper, exposing the shocking length of waits in A&E for those in a mental health crisis: 5.4 million hours across England in just one year. He is very welcome to have a look if he would like to. Given his admiration for local journalism, does he feel embarrassed for his Government’s failings and will he apologise to all the people across the country who are stuck waiting in A&E?
Steve Barclay
There are two separate issues there: what we are doing for mental health in-patients and the point we just touched on about A&E. On mental health, it is good of the hon. Lady to give me the opportunity to remind the House of the significant increase in funding we are making to mental health. In the long-term plan, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), made a major strategic choice to invest more in mental health—an extra £2.3 billion per year. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the need for more capacity for mental health in-patients—[Interruption.] She asked a question on what we are doing on mental health. I am able to tell her that we are spending far more and investing far more in it, but it seems that she does not want to hear that answer.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Annual health checks for people with a learning disability are important in addressing the causes of avoidable deaths and avoidable morbidity and in improving health.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
It is eight years since the Transforming Care programme started, with a target of halving the number of people with a learning disability and autistic people in in-patient mental health settings by 2024, yet according to the Challenging Behaviour Foundation, the number of children in those settings has nearly doubled since then, the average length of stay is 5.4 years and, 12 years on from the Winterbourne View scandal, reports of appalling standards of care are still too frequent. Does the Minister agree that people with learning disabilities and autistic people deserve so much better?
Maria Caulfield
I thank my hon. Friend for her work in this place. Our priority is always to ensure that children and adults with a learning disability and autistic people receive high-quality care. More than 2,000 people—children and adults—are still waiting to be discharged from in-patient facilities but that is a reduction of 30% and we are making progress. I am meeting individual integrated care boards—[Interruption.] Perhaps the shadow Minister would like to listen to this. I am meeting individual ICBs to go through their patients who are waiting to be discharged to see what more support we can give to make that happen as quickly as possible.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Last year the Scottish Government announced £2 million-worth of funding and help for health boards to deliver health checks for all people with learning disabilities so that any health issues could be identified and treated as quickly as possible. What plans do the UK Government have to do similar across England?
Maria Caulfield
We also ensure that those eligible for safe and wellbeing reviews get one. Last year about 87% of those who were eligible did so.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
There are 6% more dentists doing NHS work than in 2010, and activity levels are going up. In March the number of patients seen over the past year was up by nearly a fifth on the year before. The initials reforms we have made to make NHS work more attractive are having positive effects but there is much more to do and we will be publishing a plan to improve access to dentistry.
Rachael Maskell
In York alone, practices are closing, turning private and handing back contracts. Units of dental activity are down 126,130 compared with four years ago and it can take five years to see a dentist. This is an unacceptable crisis after 13 years of complete failure. Will the Minister enable integrated care boards to have full flexibility to establish an under-18s NHS dental service in schools, along with a full elderly service and one for the most disadvantaged?
Neil O’Brien
We will look at all those things. We have introduced additional flexibilities, as the hon. Lady knows, and we are allowing dentists to do more to deliver 110% of their UDAs and bringing in minimum UDA values, but we are also interested in prevention and I would be happy to look particularly at what we can do for younger people.
Christine Jardine
Tooth care, like any other form of healthcare, should be universally accessible, but we know that we are facing a crisis across the UK, with one in five adults who could not get an appointment in the past 12 months carrying out dental work on themselves, or getting someone else to do it, which is quite horrifying. The problem is not confined to one part of the UK. In Scotland, 80% of dentists are no longer accepting new adult or child patients. We have a crisis across the UK, so will the Minister commit to introducing a national programme and to speaking to the Scottish and Welsh Governments to address the shortage of NHS dentists for all of us?
Neil O’Brien
I am happy to work with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. We are, as I said, driving up levels of delivery, and we will be publishing a plan to take that further.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Like other colleagues, I have been approached by constituents who are struggling to find an NHS dentist because their previous dentist has either retired or converted to private practice. When the Minister presents his new dental plan, will it include a target to ensure registrations are available, as well as to increase the number of appointments?
Neil O’Brien
My hon. Friend is right, and I am particularly seized of the issue of access for new patients.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
My constituents in Dalton-in-Furness were dismayed to find out that their dentist has closed. This follows the closure of Bupa in Barrow and in Millom, and Avondale in Grange-over-Sands has handed back its NHS contracts. What was a bad situation has got very bad indeed. I am meeting the ICB next week to talk about what it might be able to do, but will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss what levers he can pull to improve dental access in Barrow and Furness?
Neil O’Brien
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend, and we have already talked to some extent. The minimum UDA value that we introduced particularly helps rural and coastal areas of the kind he represents, and I am happy to talk further, and to go further, on all these things.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
As in the NHS, workforce is the biggest single issue. The Nuffield Trust has identified that, post-Brexit, dentists are among the key staff we are losing. On top of that, while Scotland and Wales have childhood dental health programmes, England does not. When will England have a national childhood dental health programme, and when will the contract in England be reformed to reward preventive work, rather than just dealing with emergencies?
Neil O’Brien
We passed legislation last month to make it easier for international dentists to come to the UK by reforming the General Dental Council to speed up the flow from abroad. The hon. Lady mentions an additional service that is available in Scotland. Of course, Scotland has 25% more funding per head than the rest of the UK, which is just one benefit of being in the UK, and it is one reason why people in Scotland voted to remain in the UK.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The lack of NHS dentists is a major concern in north Staffordshire. Does the Minister agree that we should set up a dental school at Keele University, which already has one of the best medical schools in the country?
Neil O’Brien
We are looking at the dentist, hygienist and therapist workforces as part of the long-term NHS workforce plan. I can reveal that this is not the first time my hon. Friend has lobbied me on this idea, and I am sure he will continue to do so.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
We are investing at least £1.5 billion to create an additional 50 million GP appointments by 2024. To improve access to hospital appointments we are giving patients choice about their care and offering alternative providers, with shorter waiting times, to long-waiters. We are also investing £2.3 billion in community diagnostic services, which will improve access to tests, checks and scans. One hundred community diagnostic centres are already open, and they have delivered more than 3.6 million additional tests.
Jamie Stone
If we have a power cut in north Scotland, people get a text message from SSE saying that engineers are coming out and that they will have power by, say, 3 o’clock. Missed NHS appointments are a waste of resources. I understand that some dental practices in England offer some sort of reminder service, but would it not be helpful if a leaf could be taken out of SSE’s book so that everyone with an NHS appointment receives a text to remind them, “You have a test at 10 o’clock tomorrow,” or possibly, “There is a big queue and there are delays, so your appointment has been changed to 4 o’clock”?
Will Quince
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. Better communication with patients was one of the five principles at the heart of our elective recovery plan, which was published in February. We recommend that all providers use appointment reminders, often through text messages. As he suggests, in some cases that has been shown to reduce “did not attends” by up to 80%. Providers have told us that they see better results when communication is two-way, for example, where patients can reply to cancel their own appointments. Alongside that, we also launched the My Planned Care website, so that patients can access information ahead of their planned appointment, and of course we are doing a lot more with the NHS app. This is just one of the ways in which we are putting patients in control of their own care.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I am the father to two beautiful daughters, Becky and Eris, one of whom was conceived through in vitro fertilisation. Being a father is one of the best things that has ever happened to me, and I was very proud to see IVF services reinstated in Peterborough and Cambridgeshire, following a campaign that I supported and helped to lead. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that IVF services and appointments are routinely offered across the NHS, in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance?
Will Quince
I, too, have two daughters, so I recognise much of what my hon. Friend said—
Will Quince
You do, too. Mine were not through IVF, but as a Back Bencher I also campaigned on IVF issues, because there was a postcode lottery on that around the country. That still exists to some extent and I would be happy to work with my hon. Friend to make sure that wherever people are in this country they can get IVF services.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Conservatives have cut 2,000 GPs since 2015 and now too many patients cannot get an appointment when they need one: 3,000 patients are waiting a month to see a GP in Dover; 3,500 are doing so in Mansfield; 3,500 are doing so in North Lincolnshire; and 5,000 are waiting a month in Swindon. So why will the Government not adopt Labour’s plan to double the number of medical school places, paid for by abolishing the non-dom tax status, so that patients have the doctors they need to get treated on time?
Will Quince
I recognise the pressures on the system, but Labour has spent the non-dom money 10 times over. We are taking real action on this issue: real-terms spending on general practice is up by more than a fifth since 2016; as I said, we are investing £1.5 billion to create an additional 50 million GP appointments; we have recruited more than 25,000 additional primary care staff; and there are 2,167 more doctors in general practice; and we have the highest number ever in training.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
In February, the faster diagnosis standard was met for the first time. In addition, we are investing in additional screening, testing and tech in order to detect cancer much earlier.
Greg Smith
Recent data for the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB shows that 42.6% of cancer patients are waiting more than 62 days for treatment. That will only get worse without a significant programme of upgrading radiotherapy equipment and ensuring that there is a skilled workforce of radiographers. So what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that new, cutting-edge radiotherapy equipment is making it to the frontline, coupled with a fully staffed workforce to operate it and save those lives?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the interaction of workforce and capacity in equipment. That is why we have 810 more consultant training places over three years, and we have grants to enable more than 1,000 nurses to train, for example, in chemotherapy and 1,400 new recruits to the cancer diagnostic workforce. Obviously, that sits alongside the expansion in capacity, including both in our surgical hubs and our expanded diagnostic centres.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent had emergency surgery for a brain tumour, but this was after six months of going to the doctor repeatedly with problem headaches. Brain cancer causes 9% of cancer deaths but accounts for only 1% of cases. Sadly, my constituent is terminally ill, but he is in a position to explain his experiences. He has asked me to raise with the Secretary of State the issue of what work is being undertaken on genome sequencing, which could have a major impact on better treatment for brain cancers. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State not only answered this today but wrote to me in more detail on it.
Steve Barclay
The whole House will send their best wishes to the hon. Lady’s constituent. She raises an important point about genomics, which is why we have invested in Genomics England and 100,000 babies are being screened—that is a key programme of work. The Minister for Health and Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) recently hosted a roundtable with key stakeholders on that, but I am happy to write to her with more detail, because the prevention and capability that is offered through screening is a great way of getting early treatment to people.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
I think the question is about GPs and workforce capability, and that is why we are investing in more doctors. We have recruited over 5,000 more doctors, including an additional 2,000 doctors in primary care.
Sir David Evennett
An increasing number of my constituents are having difficulties obtaining appointments in GP surgeries. However, I was pleased to learn that the GP workforce in my constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford has increased by an estimated 75% since September 2019. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what further steps he is taking to continue growing the workforce in general practice, which is so crucial to increasing the number of appointments available?
Steve Barclay
Now that I have found the right page in my notes I can be precise in telling my right hon. Friend that it is a 75.7% increase in his constituency, so he is absolutely right about that. Nationally, we have recruited an additional 25,262 full-time equivalent primary care professionals, so that is expanding the workforce capability in primary care. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and Secondary Care said a moment ago, it is part of our £1.5 billion investment in the workforce in primary care.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
As the House will know, this week is MS Awareness Week. Early diagnosis and treatment of MS are vital to delay disability progression and help those with the condition to manage it, yet, currently, 13,000 people have been waiting more than a year for a neurology appointment after GP referral. A recent study suggested that the UK comes a shameful 44th out of 45 European countries for neurologists per head of population. When will the Government bring forward a strategy to attract, recruit and retain the neurology workforce?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady raises an important issue related to MS. I am happy to write to her with a more detailed answer about the capability and the plan. There is always a tendency within government to lurch to a strategy rather than to look at what is needed for immediate delivery. I will happily set out what steps we are taking now as part of our pandemic recovery in order to target the workforce within the constraints that she raises.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
I want people to live independently in their own homes for longer with the care that they need. We are investing half a billion pounds annually through the disabled facilities grant to pay for housing adaptations, and supporting the home care workforce through our record social care funding increase and workforce reforms. Our new and expanded NHS virtual wards give people hospital-level care in their own homes.
Mike Amesbury
My constituent, Ewan, recently lost his grandfather. His grandfather would have liked to have spent more time at home in his last few days, but he could not because of resources—the people were not there. What are the Government doing about that? There is a real recruitment and retention crisis in the social care workforce.
Helen Whately
The hon. Member makes an important point about people spending their last days of life where they would like to spend them, which, more often than not, means at home. That comes down to supporting end-of-life care—hospices play a really important role in providing that care in people’s homes—and supporting the adult social care workforce. We are investing up to £7.5 billion in social care over the next two years and taking forward important reforms to support the adult social care workforce. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are increasing the amount of hospital-level care that people can get at home by expanding our virtual wards, which, by next winter, will mean that up to 50,000 people a month can be cared for to that level at home.
Dame Angela Eagle
Despite ministerial complacency, Age UK has pointed out that, nationally, there are currently 165,000 vacancies in social care, which is a 50% increase on last year. In the Wirral, vacancies run at 16%, which is despite the Wirral paying the real living wage. That means that only 26% of hospital patients are currently being discharged from Wirral University Teaching Hospital when they are actually ready to go. Does the Minister agree that the neglect and underfunding of social care by this Government is costing more money through wasted provision in hospitals, when social care, if it were properly provided, could give a much better experience for people who are ready to leave hospital?
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me another opportunity to talk about what we are doing to support adult social care: an extra £7.5 billion was announced at the autumn statement to support adult social, an extra £700 million was spent on supporting discharges into social care over this winter, and we have already announced £600 million to support discharges to people’s homes with the provision of social care over the coming year, because we recognise how important it is for people to get the care they need at home. The workforce are crucial to that, which is why we are taking forward our reforms to the adult social care workforce as announced a couple of weeks ago.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
The Government support the right to take industrial action within the law, but equally the law is there to protect patients and NHS staff alike. Following legal advice, NHS Employers and my Department are confident that the proposed strike action by the Royal College of Nursing goes beyond the mandate it secured from its members, which expires on 1 May at midnight. While NHS Employers has sought to resolve the issue through dialogue, the RCN’s failure to amend its planned action has led NHS Employers to request my intervention. Even as we work to resolve those issues through dialogue, I can tell the House that I have regretfully provided notice of my intent to pursue legal action. None the less, I am hopeful that discussions can still be productive, especially those between the RCN and NHS England on patient safety, and that they will continue to be guided by the imperative to keep people who use the NHS safe.
Dr Huq
The right to choose sounds attractive, but when diabetic eye disease and glaucoma seriously threaten the sight of millions, the fact that any qualified provider can and does cherry-pick reversible cataract work leaves the NHS with astronomical bills and all the complex cases. Will the Secretary of State praise award-winning clinicians Christiana and Evie at Central Middlesex Hospital and visit to see for himself how effectively writing a blank cheque for private treatment is destabilising NHS budgets and jeopardising the NHS’s ability to do award-winning research and to train junior doctors, who need routine work?
Steve Barclay
I am always happy to praise the brilliant work of clinicians up and down the NHS, who do a formidable job. Given the huge scale of the backlogs we face as a consequence of the pandemic, it is important that we not only use the full capacity available within the NHS, empowering patients through patient choice and technologies such as the NHS app to better enable that, but maximise the capacity in the independent sector.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point, and that is something that we are committed to doing. There is a huge amount of expertise within the pharmacy network, which is why we are looking, through technology such as the NHS app, at how we can better enable people to get the right care from the right place at the right time. Quite often, that is not by seeing the GP, but it might be by seeing those in additional roles in primary care or going to a pharmacist who can offer the right services.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
A 13-year-old girl who has already waited more than a year for spinal surgery has seen her operation cancelled twice because of the Government’s failure to negotiate an end to the junior doctors’ strike. Why on earth is the Secretary of State still refusing to sit down and negotiate with junior doctors?
Steve Barclay
Like others in the House, my heart goes out to any 13- year-old girl in that situation. As the parent of a 12-year-old girl, I can only imagine how distressing it is to the family concerned to see that operation cancelled. That is why it is important that we have dialogue. The hon. Gentleman has said that the demands of the British Medical Association are unaffordable and unrealistic at 35%, as has the Leader of the Opposition. We have been clear on that, but the House saw that in our negotiation with the Agenda for Change staff unions we had meaningful, constructive engagement; that was how we reached an agreement with the NHS Staff Council, and we stand ready to have similar discussions with the junior doctors.
Wes Streeting
So why is the Secretary of State not sat down with them today? He says that he cannot negotiate because the BMA will not budge on 35%, but that is not true, is it? He says that the junior doctors have to drop their preconditions; they do not have any, do they? And he says that strike action will have to be called off before he can sit down; there are no strike days planned, are there? So is it not the case that he is quite happy to see hundreds of thousands of operations cancelled so that he can blame the junior doctors for the NHS waiting lists rather than 13 years of staggering Conservative incompetence?
Steve Barclay
It is slightly odd that the hon. Gentleman talks about 13 years when we are actually talking about a current industrial dispute. We have shown, through our negotiation with the NHS Staff Council, our willingness to engage and to reach a settlement. Indeed, the general secretary of the RCN recommended the deal from the AfC unions to her members. Unison—the union of which the hon. Gentleman is a member—voted for the deal by a margin of 74%. We stand ready to have engagement with the junior doctors, but 35% is not reasonable. He himself has said—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not need the Minister for Social Care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), shouting from the end of the Treasury Bench. Okay? I call Henry Smith.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Successfully containing antimicrobial resistance requires co-ordinated action across all sectors. That is why the UK takes a “one health” national approach to AMR across humans, animals, food and the environment. Since 2014, the UK has reduced sales of veterinary antibiotics by 55% and has seen a decrease in antimicrobial resistance as a result.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The British Medical Journal has warned that the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership trade deal will make it harder for the UK to regulate tobacco and alcohol or banned products such as those containing harmful pesticides. Given that no health impact assessment has been carried out, The BMJ recommends that one should be performed now. Will the Secretary of State commit to assessing the deal’s threat to public health?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
We do not plan to debate any of our existing standards. We have some of the strongest standards for control anywhere in the world. We have no plans to get rid of any of those things.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Notwithstanding the work that the Government have done, the feedback that I am receiving from Suffolk-based NHS dentists is that there is still a very long waiting list for overseas dentists waiting to take the overseas registration examination, with more than 3,000 applicants and only 150 exams taking place each month. I urge my hon. Friend to leave no stone unturned in working with the General Dental Council to eliminate the waiting list as quickly as possible.
Neil O’Brien
We are leaving no stone unturned. Last month, we passed legislation enabling the GDC to increase the capacity of the ORE. We have also made it easier for overseas dentists to start working in the NHS: as of 1 April, no dentist will need to pay an application fee. We also want to radically reduce the time that dentists spend in performers list validation by experience, and we will set out further steps in our dentistry plan.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Maria Caulfield
We are spending an additional £2.3 billion a year on mental health services, and we have recently announced £150 million for crisis community support, because we are trying to reduce the number of people being admitted in the first place by treating them at an earlier point in their mental health illness. That will free up beds, but it will take time. Community crisis intervention is the way in which we want to make progress.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Investors need certainty and the British people need access to more medicines. The growth cap in the voluntary pricing agreement for branded medicines between the pharmaceutical industry and Government makes the size of the medicines rebate unpredictable. Will the Minister remove the growth gap from the 2024 voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access, to supercharge investment that is currently leaking to Germany and Ireland?
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
I can certainly ensure the House that we are seeking a mutually beneficial voluntary scheme that supports patient outcomes, a strong life sciences industry and a financially sustainable NHS. We have been working directly with industry to understand the impact of changes to VPAS on investments into the UK life sciences sector, and we remain firmly committed to VPAS, which, it is important to say, has saved the NHS billions of pounds and saved millions of lives by supporting patients with life-threatening conditions and giving them rapid access to new medicines.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Steve Barclay
First, I very much welcome the good care that the hon. Gentleman received, and it is great to see him back in the Chamber. On the wider issue, that is why we have an elective recovery plan, in which we have applied a boost in capacity, particularly through the surgical hubs. We are looking at how we build greater resilience, especially in winter, when elective beds are often under pressure. We are also investing in areas such as eye treatment, and we are rolling out through Getting It Right First Time a programme of improvement in a range of areas, including that one.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Provision for special educational needs and child and adolescent mental health services is one of the biggest issues in my inbox in Leicestershire, particularly in respect of delays in assessment and diagnosis. One of the Government’s plans was to introduce school mental health support teams. The Health and Social Care Committee heard that the aim was that 35% of pupils should be covered by 2023. May we have an update on progress and on when we are likely to reach 100%?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am happy to update the House, as we have already achieved 35% coverage. By the end of the month, we expect to have 399 operational mental health support teams, covering 3 million children and young people. We plan to go further, with over 500 such teams by spring 2024.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Neil O’Brien
Absolutely. We have already taken action to increase the provision of dentistry, and that has begun to have an effect. Activity—the number of people seen—is up by a fifth over the past year as a result of the reforms that we have begun to make by reforming the old contract, but we must go further.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
One of my constituents, Bethany Whitehead, suffers from functional neurological disorder, which often presents with a number of debilitating symptoms. Bethany has often been left waiting two to three years before seeing a consultant. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this further?
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I can say to her here and now that functional neurological disorder was previously regarded through a diagnosis of exclusion. It now has a rule-in diagnosis with available treatments, which is a major step forward in destigmatising the disorder. I am very happy to meet her to discuss this further.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Neil O’Brien
We have increased real-terms spending on general practice by over a fifth since 2016, and as a result there are now 10% more appointments happening every month. We are grateful to GPs for that. We have more doctors and clinicians, but we want to keep going, and I am happy to discuss this with anyone who has useful ideas to keep us powering forward.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Yesterday, when the Prime Minister met business, the huge value of the NHS database was highlighted. Unfortunately, the previous occasions on which the NHS has tried to open its database have been unmitigated disasters. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to stick closely to the recommendations of the Goldacre report so that we can deliver the database while protecting the privacy of patients?
Steve Barclay
It is a huge opportunity. My right hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter outside the Chamber, and I met Ben Goldacre in the summer to discuss his fantastic work in the context of covid. It is absolutely right that, given the potential of artificial intelligence, there are huge opportunities in relation to health inequalities and allowing us to better target provision. I think my right hon. Friend would agree that we should do that through the prism of patient consent. One thing that we are trying to build into the NHS app is the ability to better empower the patient to decide what they wish to sign up to and what they would like their data shared with.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Steve Barclay
We are committed to a major conditions paper, not least because many people with cancer have multiple conditions; that is why it is important that we look at these issues in the round. With the Minister for Social Care, I had a very useful roundtable with key stakeholders, including the cancer charities. The key issue is that as part of our work on cancer checks, over 320,000 more people are receiving treatment for cancer compared with last year—that is around fifth higher—and we are expanding our capacity through the diagnostic centres, the surgical hubs and the expansion of the workforce. All of that fits within the strategy we have through the major conditions paper.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
St Rocco’s Hospice in Warrington provides invaluable palliative and end-of-life care for families. However, the charities that run hospices around the UK are finding it incredibly difficult to raise funds. Will the Minister give us an assurance that she is working very closely with the sector to ensure that those services continue to be provided?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the very important work that hospices do in our communities, and I fully support hospices as a sector. The funding for hospices generally comes through the NHS and the local integrated care boards that commission the services they provide, as well as, of course, from their own fundraising efforts. I am speaking to NHS England about the support it provides to hospices, because I am very keen to make sure that they get the support that they need.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Building on the novel approach to clinical trials that was so successful for the covid-19 vaccines, what more is the Department doing to capture that success and the willingness of volunteers to come forward, as well as to streamline processes across participating bodies for clinical trials of future medicines?
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Over 12,000 more participants a month are recruited into clinical trials than before the pandemic, but we recognise that there is much more to do in order to be internationally competitive, including around regulation and speed of approval. I am pleased to say that in the coming weeks, Lord O’Shaughnessy will publish his independent review into UK clinical trials, and I very much look forward to receiving his recommendations.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Neil O’Brien
I am very happy to meet the right hon. Lady as we work towards the workforce plan and the dental plan.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Minister is aware that BUPA recently closed the dental practice in Bolsover, leaving a severe shortage of NHS dentistry in the constituency. I met the ICB yesterday to discuss the various options for the constituency, but will the Minister commit to meeting me and the ICB to talk through those options and see what we can do to maintain NHS dentistry in Bolsover?
Neil O’Brien
I have already met my hon. Friend, but I am very happy to meet him and his ICB to make sure that we commission the services that are so needed locally.
Bill Presented
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Kemi Badenoch, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Michelle Donelan, Secretary Lucy Frazer, Kevin Hollinrake, Paul Scully and Julia Lopez, presented a Bill to provide for the regulation of competition in digital markets; to amend the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002 and to make other provision about competition law; to make provision relating to the protection of consumer rights and to confer further such rights; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 294) with explanatory notes (Bill 294-EN).
Universal Jurisdiction (Extension)
Tuesday 25th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) Bill 2022-23 View all Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) 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
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes may be tried in the United Kingdom regardless of the nationality or residence of the offender; and for connected purposes.
The Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) Bill would tighten existing legislation on how we bring to justice those responsible for the world’s most heinous crimes. The Bill would allow legal systems across the UK to do that, irrespective of where the crimes were committed, regardless of the nationality or location of the perpetrators or victims, and without having to consider whether the accused person or the victim had any specific connection to the UK. In short, the Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) Bill is about saying to the world’s worst criminals that there is no hiding place and there will be no immunity.
Under international law, states are required to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute certain crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction. It is the international community’s way of recognising that there are crimes so grave that we all have an inherent responsibility and collective interest to ensure that they are prosecuted. The Bill seeks to help the UK meet its international responsibilities by amending the International Criminal Court Act 2001. Although that Act gives courts jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, it is still woefully deficient in providing what we would want from legislation claiming to operate universal jurisdiction.
The main problem with the 2001 Act is that even with the most heinous crimes, if they were committed outside the UK, they can be prosecuted here only if the accused person is a UK national, a UK resident or subject to UK service jurisdiction. While some may say that the UK does have universal jurisdiction when it comes to such crimes, the reality is that what we have in the UK could best be described as a system of extraterritorial jurisdiction. That is what the Bill seeks to remedy, so that we instead have a real and meaningful system of universal jurisdiction for those crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. That is important, because given what is happening in the world right now, this is a live and pressing issue, whether in Ukraine, Myanmar, Xinjiang, Tigray or many, many other places.
Many people are working right now on how the UK should change its definition of universal jurisdiction. I put on record my thanks to Dr Ewelina Ochab of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute for her invaluable assistance in putting the Bill together. I also thank the Clooney Foundation for Justice, which has done an enormous amount of work on this topic in recent months, and which will in the next couple of months release its own report on universal jurisdiction in the United Kingdom.
I understand that among that report’s key recommendations will be that the UK Government amend section 51(2)(b) of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to remove the requirement that for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the crime needs to have been committed either in the UK or, if committed outside the UK, by a UK national or resident for our courts to have jurisdiction. The report will argue instead that the UK should provide jurisdiction over those international crimes committed anywhere in the world, even when that offence bears no relation to the UK.
As the Clooney Foundation for Justice report will set out, our courts already have universal jurisdiction when it comes to torture and certain other war crimes, which can be prosecuted regardless of the defendant’s nationality. There is no convincing explanation for the distinction that is drawn between the law on torture and those other international crimes. One consequence of the loophole might well be that Russian generals with blood on their hands could still travel to the UK, go shopping in Knightsbridge, undergo medical treatment and dine out in London’s best restaurants without facing the risk of arrest for the most serious and heinous crimes in the world. The foundation argues that that must change, and I wholeheartedly agree.
In this changing world, it is becoming increasingly clear that the UK’s position on universal jurisdiction is simply not fit for purpose. That is not just because we operate this extraterritorial jurisdiction, but because under current law, proceedings for international crimes cannot be brought without the consent of the Attorney General. Ultimately that means that decisions to prosecute these crimes will be a political decision. Consequently, the UK cannot possibly play as meaningful a part in ensuring justice and accountability as it should. That may go some way to explaining why, to this day, British courts have not prosecuted anyone for their involvement in genocide, despite the fact that we have suspected perpetrators residing in the UK from both the Rwandan and the Yazidi genocides.
Even by the Government’s own assessment, almost 1,000 British nationals travelled to Syria and Iraq to join Daesh. They were all complicit in the horrific atrocities, the killings, the rapes, the sexual enslavement of Yazidi women and girls, and much more—so much more, indeed, that this House unanimously declared in April 2016 that Daesh atrocities did indeed constitute a genocide. The UK Government also estimate that 400 British Daesh fighters are now back in the UK, yet only 32 of those returnees have been convicted for terror-related offences, or less than 10% of the returnees. Not one—not a single—Daesh fighter has stood trial in the UK for the rape and sexual enslavement of Yazidi women and children. Not one of them has been charged with torture or the forced recruitment of young boys into the ranks of Daesh fighters. Not one of them has been held to account for the mass graves that are still being uncovered in Sinjar, and not one of them has been asked to explain the fate of the 2,700 Yazidi women and girls who are still unaccounted for. They have all gotten away with genocide.
But it does not have to be this way. Many of our friends and allies have changed their law to meet the changing situation. In Germany, the law is unambiguous, saying that universal jurisdiction will apply to all criminal offences against international law. That means, regardless of where an offence was committed and whether it involves a German citizen, an accused person can be tried before a German criminal court. It has been this determination to pursue universal jurisdiction—genuine universal jurisdiction—that has resulted in the first ever prosecutions and convictions for members of Daesh for genocide.
In January 2023, President Biden signed into law the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act, which greatly expands the scope of individuals who can face prosecution for US war crimes. That Act will assist the Department of Justice in prosecuting alleged war criminals who are found in the United States, regardless of where they committed a crime or the nationality of either the perpetrator or the victim. The law was given extra impetus in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, where there is now a growing body of evidence of war crimes being perpetrated by Putin’s army.
Despite many warm words, the harsh truth is that, if UK domestic law is not strengthened, we will be unable to play a full part in bringing some of the world’s worst criminals to justice. That is why we need proper, universal jurisdiction, and that is why we also need to remove that extra political hurdle of seeking the permission or consent of the Attorney General before we can prosecute for genocide. This Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) Bill aims to address these issues, and help the UK play a full and appropriate role in ensuring justice, accountability and the upholding of international law.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Brendan O’Hara, Drew Hendry, Caroline Lucas, Liz Saville Roberts, Kirsty Blackman, Claire Hanna, Patrick Grady, Jim Shannon, Ben Lake, Patricia Gibson and Stewart Malcolm McDonald present the Bill.
Brendan O’Hara accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 296).
Opposition Day
Water Quality: Sewage Discharge
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:06 - The House divided: - Ayes: 290 / Noes: 188 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 286 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to set a target for the reduction of sewage discharges, to provide for financial penalties in relation to sewage discharges and breaches of monitoring requirements, and to carry out an impact assessment of sewage discharges; and makes provision as set out in this Order:
(1) On Tuesday 2 May 2023:
(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that Order) shall not apply;
(b) any proceedings governed by this Order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);
(d) at 6.00pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this Order and call the Member for Oldham West and Royton or another Member on his behalf to move the motion that the Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill be now read a second time as if it were an order of the House;
(e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this Order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.
(2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (18) of this Order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill in the present Session of Parliament.
Timetable for the Bill on Tuesday 2 May 2023
(3) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Tuesday 2 May 2023 in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 8.00pm.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 10.00pm.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Tuesday 2 May 2023
(4) When the Bill has been read a second time: (a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (committal of Bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; (b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(5) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by The Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or motion made by a designated Member;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (15) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion made for a new clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day
(8) If on any future sitting day any message on the Bill (other than a message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords, this House shall not adjourn until that message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (9) have been concluded.
(9) On any day on which such a message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message—
(a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly;
(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings.
(10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if:
(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;
(b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted—
“(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.
Reasons Committee
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme Orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.
(13) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies.
(14) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(15) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(16) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(17) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this Order apply.
(18) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which proceedings to which this Order applies are to take place shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order 15 In line 4 (1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.
(19) In this Order, “a designated Member” means—
(a) the Member for Oldham West and Royton; and
(b) any other Member acting on behalf of the Member for Oldham West and Royton.
(20) This Order shall be a Standing Order of the House.
The motion would allow for parliamentary time on Tuesday 2 May to progress Labour’s Bill, the Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill, which would finally see an end to the Tory sewage scandal. The reason we are here today is that the country we love, and the quality of life for millions of working people, is being treated with utter contempt: dumped on with raw human sewage; dumped on on an industrial scale; dumped on with at least 1.5 million sewage dumps last year alone; and dumped on for a total of 11 million running hours. That is a sewage dump every two and a half minutes. Just in the course of this debate, 70 sewage dumps will take place in the country, in the places where people have invested everything they have, where they have put down their roots and where they have invested the most precious of things—their families and shared futures. Those sewage dumps are going into the seas where people swim, the canals alongside which people take their dogs for a walk and the very beaches where our children build sandcastles.
Jim McMahon
I will make some progress and take some interventions later—[Interruption.] Hang on; your moment will come.
It goes to our leisure and beauty spots. Businesses rely on tourists coming with confidence.
It is clear that the Tories either do not know, or do not care about the human impact of the Tory sewage scandal. This affects every stretch of our coastline across the country, and it shows the contempt that the Tories have for our seaside towns, from Hartlepool to Hastings, from Bournemouth to Falmouth, from Camborne to Blackpool, and everywhere in between. Beyond the coast, our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, which are home to our stunning lakes, and our rivers, the arteries of our nation, are being sullied by the Tory sewage scandal.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I say to the hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman that, yes, the hon. Member has to give way, but you cannot permanently be stood there until somebody—[Interruption.] You do not need to give me any indications. I am telling you what the rules are and the rules will be applied. Secretary of State.
Jim McMahon
Thank you, Mr Speaker—we’ve 12 months yet. I will take interventions once I have made progress on this section. Hon. Members should not worry; their opportunity to defend the last 13 years in government will come—they should not worry too much about that.
At its heart, this speaks to whether families should have the right to live a decent and fulfilled life. People look to our seas, lakes and rivers for quality of life. They are the very places where people live, work and holiday together, and where families create memories, forge bonds and strengthen relationships by enjoying the beauty that our country has to offer. More than just the daily grind of work, it is about who we are and it is those moments together that make life worth living. But the truth is that the Tories are turning our green land into an open sewer.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I would like him to outline when he or the Labour party realised that sewage was being put into rivers and seas. When was the Labour party made aware of that originally?
Jim McMahon
I welcome that intervention. I would also welcome an explanation to the hon. Lady’s constituents as to why there have been 200 sewage incidents in her own backyard. That is why her constituents send her here—to ensure that their interests are put right—[Interruption.] I will come on to Labour’s record, but I warn Government Members that it may not paint the last 13 years in a good light.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim McMahon
I will make some progress.
This is an environmental hazard, a health hazard and an economic hazard. The full scale of the billions of pounds that the Tory sewage scandal is costing our businesses and local economies is still not fully known. Why? Because the Government will not undertake an economic assessment of the impact of sewage dumping. What do they have to hide? [Interruption.] Members will like this bit—hang on. While the Secretary of State has been on taxpayer-funded jollies to Brazil, Canada, Egypt, France, Japan, Panama and the US, as shadow Environment Secretary, I have travelled to every corner of the country to hear first-hand about the impact of the Tory sewage scandal. While she has been in duty free, I have been here on duty—that’s the difference—[Interruption.] There’s more, hold on. You’re in for a bumpy ride. The next three hours will not be like first class, I can tell you that much.
I have met businesses that have been forced to pull down the shutters when sewage alerts drive people away from beaches. I have met people in Hastings who are suffering the effects of having contracted hepatitis and Weil’s disease just because they encountered sewage in the open waters. I have met community groups such as that self-organising, fundraising and monitoring the water quality in the River Kent. They are saying to the Government that enough is enough. I heard the same things in Oxford and when I met Surfers Against Sewage in Cornwall.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member said that he came to visit Hastings and spoke to people—he never informed me of his visit to Hastings.
Mr Speaker
That is not a point of order, but I would say to the hon. Lady that, if somebody has been to her constituency, it is absolutely correct that Members should give notice to the MP whose constituency they are visiting. I do not care which side of the House Members sit on. You must do the right thing and let a Member know that you are entering their constituency.
Jim McMahon
I am very happy to look into that point. As a matter of course, we always ensure when visiting the constituents of Conservative MPs that as a matter of respect we inform the local MP. I would love nothing more than for a Conservative MP to attend those visits and explain their voting record to their constituents. I know that Helena Dollimore, the Labour and Co-operative candidate, was very much made aware, so I will follow that up and ensure, if it did happen, that it does not happen again.
Earlier this week, I met environmental groups from across the country to hear about the impact that the Tory sewage scandal is having on their communities. They stand proud of their communities, but they are equally angry, and they are right to be angry. Only this weekend, we celebrated St George’s Day and spoke about what makes England so special, and what makes it a green and pleasant land. For example, the brilliant Lake Windermere, England largest lake, formed 13,000 years ago from the melting ice, is a world heritage site and attracts 16 million visitors every year. What William Wordsworth once described as:
“A universe of Nature’s fairest forms”
is now dying at the hands of this complicit Government. One member from the Save Windermere campaign told us that, due to the constant pollution, a whole five-mile stretch of the lake has been turned bright green because of excessive pollutants being dumped in it. Even the glorious Lake Windermere is not off bounds.
The fantastic coastline of Cornwall draws in millions of visitors and is a magnet for surfers—surfers who face the prospect of becoming ill simply by going out in the water. There are campaigners for the River Ilkley, in self-styled God’s own country, Yorkshire.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim McMahon
I will take an intervention shortly from the Opposition Benches.
Mr Speaker, do you know that raw human sewage is even being discharged moments away from these very Houses of Parliament? Members should think about that when they go to vote. There is no place exempt from the Tory sewage scandal—and what a metaphor for the last 13 years of a Tory Government.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. My constituency is named after the River Weaver, which is at the heart of our community. We have the River Mersey as well. Some 19,000 hours’ worth of raw sewage has been discharged into those rivers. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving the whole House the opportunity to stand up for our local rivers, waterways and beaches. I encourage Members from across the House to join us in voting for the motion today.
Jim McMahon
That is exactly what this debate is about: MPs who care about the places they represent standing up for what is right, instead of making excuses for 13 failed years in government. That is exactly why Members are sent to this House, and others could take note.
What we have seen is that there is no respect for our country, there is no respect for our values, there is no respect for our history and there is no respect for our future. What is more, there is no respect for the working people who make this country what it is.
What was the Secretary of State’s response when this issue was first raised? First, she told Parliament that meeting water companies was not her priority, passing the buck to her junior Minister; then she broke the Government’s own legal deadline for publishing water quality targets; and then she announced, repeatedly, that she would kick the can down the road on cleaning up our waterways. Since then, we have had three panic-stricken announcements of the Secretary of State’s so-called plan, each one nothing new but a copy and paste of what went before. We know the Tories do not have a plan. At best, they have a recycled press release. That is the difference. I give way to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I do not think anyone would argue that we do not need to invest more in better water quality. More parts of the country need to see schemes such as the new water treatment works in Scarborough and the 4 million litre storm water tank, also in Scarborough. What we need to debate is timescale and affordability. Does the hon. Member think that it is slightly ironic that, when even the most modest prediction is that his proposals would put £1,000 on the average water bill, the second debate this afternoon is on the cost of living increases?
Jim McMahon
Honestly, I am staggered. I say that with respect to the Chair of the EFRA Committee. Our figures are based on the Government’s figures, and I am happy to put them in the House of Commons Library. DEFRA’s own figures put a cost on Labour’s plan and, let me tell him, the lowest estimate is 10% of what has been taken out in dividends. Those are not our figures; they are the Government’s own figures. If the Environment Secretary has not read her own assessment of ending the Tory sewage scandal, it will be in the Library at the end of the debate; Members can read it for themselves. This is her day job, right? She is meant to understand the data her Department produces and form a plan behind that. I am sorry that my expectations were obviously too high. [Interruption.] Members will enjoy the next bit.
Let us not forget the Environment Secretary’s first spell in DEFRA. In her three years as water Minister, she slashed the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget. Its ability to tackle pollution at source was cut by a third, resources to hold water companies to account were snatched away and there was literally the opening of the floodgates that allowed sewage dumping to take place. What have been the consequences? There has been a doubling of sewage discharges: a total of 321 years’ worth of sewage dumping, all on her watch and straight to her door. She said that getting a grip of the sewage scandal was not a priority, but something for other people to sort out. What she really meant was that it was not politically advisable, because her own record spoke for itself. I have a simple question: how can she defend the interests of the country when so implicated in destroying it? The public are not stupid. They see this issue for exactly what it is: the Tory sewage scandal.
Jim McMahon
I have already given way once. Let me make some progress.
Last week, Labour published analysis of Environment Agency and Top of the Poops data which showed that in 2022, Tory Ministers—this is the Cabinet, the highest seat in government—allowed 7,500 days’ worth of raw human sewage to be dumped in their constituencies. The data showed that there is a sewage dump taking place every 22 minutes in their own backyard. That Tory Cabinet Ministers are willing to allow that to happen to their own constituents really speaks volumes. In Suffolk Coastal, a constituency that may be familiar to the Environment Secretary, there were 426 sewage dumps last year. In the Chancellor’s constituency, there were 242. In the Prime Minister’s Richmond, Yorks constituency—proof that this goes all the way to the top—there were 3,500 sewage dumps.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he acknowledge that the only reason he is able to reel off those statistics is because the Conservative Government have ensured that we now have 91% monitoring, soon to be 100%, across the country? Will he also acknowledge that that has only happened under a Conservative Government and that the last Labour Government did absolutely nothing?
Jim McMahon
I am not one to offer advice to those on the Government Benches, but I will just say this to eager Back Benchers bobbing for their Whips: they might want to check their constituency’s data before getting up to defend the Government’s record. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Mr Seely, you are trying to catch my eye, but you will not do it by chuntering from that position.
Jim McMahon
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady will know that her own constituency has had nearly 2,000 sewage dumps. If she wants to defend that record to her constituents, then so be it—fine. But if she does not want to remind her constituents, I can guarantee this: the Labour candidate will. That is what this debate is about and why Members are so exercised, let us be honest. Are Members exercised because our rivers, lakes and seas are being dumped on, or are they exercised because they have now realised that they might have to face the consequences of that dumping? That is what the excitement is about.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim McMahon
I am going to make some progress.
The Government will blame everybody: the Victorians, devolved Administrations, home drainage, housebuilders, people flushing items down the loo. Now, it is true that this issue has to be faced on multiple fronts, but there is one common theme that has run throughout the Secretary of State’s period in office. What is it? They never take responsibility; it is always somebody else’s fault; it is never at the door of the Government. Let me be clear: the levers of power were always there to be pulled. The truth is that the Government did not even lift a finger to try and that is why we are in this situation today.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Ind)
One hundred years ago in St Helens we had chemical factories, coalmines, glassworks and no environmental regulations, but with 835 sanctioned spills in 2022, pollution in our rivers and waterways is arguably worse now than it was then. Does my hon. Friend share the frustrations of the volunteers who look after the Sankey canal and valley, and engage in activities such as litter picks, that no matter how much rubbish they get from the towpath, there is 10 times more going into the canal itself?
Jim McMahon
That is a really good point. Many people think that this must be an issue that affects our seas and our national parks, but it goes to every community. For those who live in an urban community, the stream or canal network near their home is being dumped on. For many communities that is all they have. That is their bridge to nature, and it is being treated with such disrespect by the Government in a way that cannot carry on.
I want to return to the issue of levers of power, because quite a lot of what I hear is that the scale of the challenge is overwhelming and that to face it is far too great a mountain to climb. Economic regulation of the water industry in both England and in Wales has always been controlled by the Tories here for the last 13 years, treating England and Wales as an open sewer. That lever could have been pulled to improve water performance, holding water companies to account and resourcing the work needed to combat sewage pollution in England. [Interruption.] I hear the Environment Secretary chuntering; hopefully, she will address that.
To be absolutely clear about where power sits in our democracy and where Government responsibility sits when it comes to water: first, economic regulation—the levers of power, the purse strings—are not devolved at all.
Alun Cairns
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. The shadow Secretary of State may have inadvertently misled the House. He said moments ago that water and environmental policy were reserved, but they are devolved. I suspect that he might be embarrassed that the Welsh Government have not acted—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have told you before, Mr Cairns, that when I stand up, I expect you to sit down. When I start to speak, I do not expect you to carry on speaking. Mr Cairns, you have been pushing your luck for quite a few weeks, and I am serious. I hope that in future you will take notice, because we will make sure that you do. I do not want to get to that point, but you are pushing me towards it. I am not responsible for what the shadow Secretary of State says. He has heard your point—although it was not a point of order—and I will leave it to him.
Jim McMahon
I am not sure whether Parliament can do some sort of induction for Conservative Members on how Parliament works and where power sits, but the House of Commons Library is very good at providing briefings for MPs. To be clear, the economic regulator Ofwat reports solely to the Environment Secretary for the UK. That is a matter of fact. It is not devolved; it is for the UK. The economic levers of power have allowed £72 billion of shareholder dividends to go out the door on one side, while England and Wales have been turned into an open sewer on the other. That goes right to the door of the Secretary of State.
I credit the Welsh Labour Government for their record of leading on nature and the environment. Like me, they say that whether in England or in Wales, every part of the land that we care about and love, where working people have a right to a decent life, should be kept in good check and with the respect that it deserves.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim McMahon
I will make some progress.
Conservative MPs should see this as a second chance, which everyone deserves. Let us take our mind back to the first chance, which was the passage of the Environment Act 2021, and an amendment that Labour backed that would have introduced a legal obligation to bring down sewage dumping progressively. It was blocked by Conservative MPs, who voted against it. It fell at the first test, but we believe in second chances. Today provides that second chance to right that wrong and to get behind Labour’s plan to clean up the Tory sewage scandal.
Let me come to Labour’s record, because the Conservatives would have us believe that the scale of dumping was inevitable, that there is nothing we can do about it, and that there is no alternative or somehow it has always been terrible. That is not what the evidence says. The last Labour Government had a proud record of delivering improvements in water quality. Shortly after the Labour party left office, the Environment Agency—in the Secretary of State’s own Department—reported that our rivers were cleaner than at any time since before the industrial revolution. In fact, in 2002, the then Environment Minister—the former Member for Oldham West and Royton, as it happens—celebrated how clean the water was when he took to it in Blackpool, with cameras looking on, to celebrate the proud moment that it met bathing water quality status. I would not think that the Environment Secretary would have the confidence to go swimming on the shores of Blackpool today, since over the past year there have been 22 incidents—62 hours—of raw human sewage being dumped in those waters, straight into the Irish sea.
We have shown that Labour will clean up the Tory sewage scandal—we have done it before, and we can do it again. In the absence of any leadership from the Government, Labour is stepping up. Today, there is finally something worth getting behind, after waiting 13 lost years—a whole generation of opportunity taken away.
Let me address cost. We are in the middle of a Tory cost of living crisis. Households are being hammered, and at every angle it seems that things are getting worse, not better. People see that when they go to the supermarket for their shop—again, a risible failing by the Secretary of State responsible for food, who does not think it is her job to have a roundtable with the food industry—and straight through to energy bills and mortgages. People are feeling the pinch. In their water bills, people are already paying for a service. Sewage treatment is itemised in every one of our bills but is not being delivered. Instead, the Tories are allowing water companies to cut corners and to dump sewage untreated.
Jim McMahon
Let me make this point, because it ties in with following the money and tracking back to the impact. The storm overflow data, which water companies themselves provide to the Government, tells us that not a single one of the dumping incidents from last year was a result of exceptional circumstances. They were not down to rainfall or storms—the water companies and the Government say so. It is about a lack of treatment and investment. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) can learn to be quiet without the attention. That is basic good sense.
We need to address the issue of who pays. We believe that the polluter should pay. At the same time, water companies have walked away with £72 billion in dividends, and water bosses have enjoyed payments and bonuses of millions of pounds, even after sewage dumping had been identified. The Bill is about fixing those loopholes that allow poor practice and corner cutting, to ensure that the Government and the water companies together are acting in the public interest. It is not right that working people are paying for the privilege of having raw human sewage dumped in their communities.
Jim McMahon
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he has been persistent.
Paul Holmes
I note that the shadow Secretary of State’s paragraph on the Labour record was very short—perhaps because under the Labour Government 7% of sewage discharges were monitored, whereas now that is 91%, with an ambition of 100% through the legislation that the Secretary of State has laid out. Why can the shadow Secretary of State not stand at the Dispatch Box and welcome that, and accept that his party did nothing about this issue in its time in government?
Jim McMahon
I am not sure that was worth waiting for. The hon. Gentleman was so persistent that I thought a gem would come to advance the debate, but the House was left wanting, yet again. I am proud of Labour’s record. We went from industrial pollution affecting our rivers and canals to the cleanest water since before the industrial revolution. That progress and legacy should have been built on, but they have been trashed. We have gone backwards, not forwards.
We need to change the culture in water companies and demand change, by setting down legally binding targets and enforcing straightforward penalties for failure. The Bill protects bill payers in law—no ifs, not buts. The cost must and will be borne by water companies and their shareholders, protected in the Bill in black and white. That is the basis of our motion, and it is what Members on all sides of the House will vote for later—not a fabricated version of reality that does not hold up to the evidence; no more jam tomorrow, asking people to wait until 2050 at the earliest to see an end to the sewage scandal; in black and white, a plan finally to end the scandal.
Let me outline what the Bill does, before I close and allow other Members to speak. It will deliver mandatory monitoring on all sewage outlets and a standing charge on water companies that fail.
Jim McMahon
One minute. That will mean that where a discharge station is not in place or is not working, the water companies will pay a standing charge, assuming that sewage is being discharged. Automatic fines for discharges will end the idea that people have to go through a costly and protracted investigation and prosecution to hold water companies to account. Water companies will pay on day one, the second that sewage is discharged. Legally binding targets will end the sewage discharge scandal by 2030. We will give power to the regulators and require them to properly enforce the rules. Critically, and in black and white, we will ensure that the plan is funded by eroding shareholders’ dividends, not putting further pressure on householders by adding to customers’ bills.
Let me be clear: any Tory abstentions or any votes against the motion or the current Bill are yet another green light to continue the Tory sewage scandal.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has made the fatal error of thinking that we are supporting the water companies, when we are holding them to account. That is exactly why we have threatened them with unlimited fines; exactly why Ofwat has passed new rules to restrict dividend payments; and exactly why we now have the most stringent measures on water companies in Europe. What did the Labour party do, because it did not hold water companies to account?
Jim McMahon
The hon. Gentleman is definitely currying favour with the Conservative Whips Office, and I give him credit for energetically reading out the Whips’ top lines—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) said earlier that her office was not informed about our visit to her constituency, when we met our fantastic candidate, Helena Dollimore. I have been handed a copy of an email that proves not only that her office was informed of the visit, but that that email was acknowledged by her office.
Jim McMahon
I will come straight to the point: had the Conservative Government, in their 13 years in office, treated this issue with the importance that is needed and dealt with the water companies—
Jim McMahon
The hon. Gentleman can answer this question for his constituents: over the last 13 years, why has an average of £1.8 billion every year been taken in shareholder dividends and not invested in water infrastructure? That is a record. [Interruption.] I do not care what the Whips Office has briefed; I care about the evidence. That is what every debate in the House should be based on. I respectfully ask him to go away and test the evidence, rather than reading the top line.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim McMahon
A lot of Members have put in to speak in the debate and they have a right to be heard, so I will bring my remarks to a close.
This plan is the first step in Labour’s reform of the water industry and will work towards building a better Britain. After 13 years, the Tories have run out of road, run out of ideas and run out of time. Labour is ambitious for Britain and for working people. That starts with treating the country, working people and local businesses with the respect that they deserve.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from
“an impact assessment of sewage discharges;”
to the end of the Question.
The public are rightly disgusted by the excessive sewage discharges from storm overflows, and so am I, my colleagues on the Government Benches and hon. Members across the House. So are this Government. That is why we have taken more action than any other Government on the issue.
We created our storm overflow discharge plan, with an impact assessment showing that it will require the largest ever investment by the water industry, up to £56 billion. Last month we set out our new comprehensive, integrated plan for water. That will deliver a clean and plentiful supply of water for people, businesses and nature, building on the significant investments and progress already made in cleaning up our waters since 2010.
Nearly three in four beaches are rated excellent for bathing, which is up from just half in 2010, when Labour left power. We have taken on the micro and single-use plastics that are a plague for marine life; we are supporting the super-sewer in London, which is taking over 10 years to construct; and there is consistent action, right across the country, on cleaning up our waters. That is why we are seeing much-loved species, such as seahorses, otters and seals, returning to our rivers and seas.
By requiring water companies to start monitoring, we unveiled the scourge of sewage. It was a Conservative Minister, Richard Benyon, who ordered that. By the end of this year, not by 2030, all combined sewer overflows will have monitors. Informed by monitoring, we are now in the situation where the water companies are under active criminal and civil investigation by the Environment Agency and by Ofwat, which is the largest investigation ever. That is why I move the amendment in my name and that of the Prime Minister, because this Government have already taken action.
With regard to this motion, we already have a target for a reduction in sewage discharges, which we will put into law; we have already consulted to remove caps on financial penalties; and we have already undertaken an assessment of sewage discharges. However, unlike the Opposition, we have a credible, costed plan to stop the scourge of sewage.
Today we have already heard a barrage of blame and finger pointing, but we have not heard a credible, costed plan to tackle the issue. I am used to the personal attacks, the diatribes and the cheap shots, but I can tell hon. Members that Labour’s plan is not cheap. My parents lived in Frodsham for some time, so I am very conscious of the River Weaver, and I grew up in Liverpool, so I am very conscious of the River Mersey, which has got cleaner and cleaner over time thanks to ongoing continued investment.
Frankly, we should be having a grown-up debate about the issue. A lot of the plan set out by the shadow Secretary of State is pointless because it is already being done. We were talking about food, and I guess the hon. Gentleman has taken up growing magic mushrooms: the Opposition did not publish the data, they were not monitoring it, they kept people in the dark and they fed them BS for all the time they were in government.
Stephen Crabb
Is my right hon. Friend slightly surprised by the tone that has been struck by the Opposition? Does she agree that they need to show a bit more humility, because if they were serious about these proposals being their official party policy, would we not expect to see some evidence of that being implemented in a part of the country where they are in power—namely, Wales—where there are no targets and no credible plan for tackling the issue?
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shadow Secretary of State is ambitious to take my job in the future, but I am confident that the Conservatives will win the next election, partly because we are used to cleaning up this sort of rubbish when Labour leaves office.
I gently say to the shadow Secretary of State that Ofwat is a non-ministerial department and the Welsh Government provide a strategic policy statement to Ofwat for matters in Wales. It is a devolved matter. The hon. Gentleman is dragging the Welsh Government into the debate today, but he should be aware that in 2022 Wales had, on average, 38 spills per outflow, whereas in England it was down to 22 spills. Tackling the issue is not straightforward, but Wales is not doing well. I am not going to blame the Welsh Government out loud, but I am conscious that they would be better following us and having a credible, costed plan, instead of looking away from Westminster.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The complacency that the Secretary of State is displaying is frankly shocking. Not one English river is classed as being in a healthy condition, none meet good chemical standards and few meet good ecological standards. The Conservatives have been in power for 13 years. That is a record of failure. In addition, dividends now average £1.6 billion a year, which is money going out of the system altogether. Why will she not accept that privatisation has been a complete failure, put water back into public hands and make sure the investment goes where it is needed?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady should be aware that during the last decade we put in place legislation that made it tougher to meet ecological status. That includes taking on the monitoring of certain chemicals, which is not done by the Welsh or Scottish Governments. That is why we will continue to work on this issue in a specific way. We are leaning into the issue.
I genuinely wish that Labour had started to sort out the issues when in office. I am not saying that the Labour Government did completely nothing, but they were certainly not clear with the public about what was going on. In 2010, we knew there was no money left after Labour’s damage to the public purse. Indeed, the former Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury was honest enough to tell us that in his own writing. What we did not know was quite how much mess was left behind for a Conservative Government to clean up yet again, which is what we set about doing.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the privatisation that has just been criticised, investment has doubled to £160 billion?
Dr Coffey
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. We are talking about sources of financing. Do the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and Opposition Members want to see fewer hospitals and schools being built, or less going towards all the other ways in which we are spending taxpayers’ money?
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I listened to what the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) had to say, but under the last Labour Government the pumping of raw sewage into our waterways was unregulated, unmonitored and completely unrestricted. Since 2010, this Government have increased the monitoring of outflows, which will be at almost 100% next year. They have imposed £150 million in punitive fines on water companies. They have sponsored investment of more than £56 billion, over decades, into the water network. They are the first Government to tackle the issue for many decades. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Labour spokesman was talking poo?
Dr Coffey
I think that is a polite way of describing what we heard.
Sewage overflows are not new. They are the result of Victorian plumbing infrastructure combining waste water and surface water pipes, and they were designed to act as a safety valve so that the impact of heavy rainfall would not lead to sewage backing up into people’s homes. That was more than 100 years ago; since privatisation, we have seen much-needed investment into our leaking water network. More than 30% of pipes, if not close to 40%, have been replaced in that time.
It was in Labour’s time in government, back in 2003, that the EU took the Government to court in relation to sewage discharges from overflows. In 2009, it was a Labour Government who introduced operator self-monitoring, allowing water companies to mark their own homework. After the minimal progress under Labour, it was a Conservative Minister who recognised the problem and recognised that we needed an objective means of measuring discharges. That is why water companies were instructed in 2013 to monitor when and for how long their storm overflows operated. That data is published online; thanks to our Environment Act, it will now need to be provided in near-real time. As I have said, all storm overflows will be monitored by the end of this year.
It is the monitoring and opening up of information that has exposed the scale of the issue. It is why we have already had successful criminal prosecutions, it is why we have an unprecedented criminal investigation under way right now, and frankly it is why we are seeing a Labour party that is desperate to make up for its failures in office.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to clarify to the House that in most cases, and certainly in my constituency, storm overflows are over 95% rainwater? Certainly, at no point is raw sewage being dumped on our beautiful beaches.
Dr Coffey
I agree. Facts are our friends in these matters, and it is important that we continue to ensure that our constituents are well informed.
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that there is a massive difference between a press release and a plan. We have already set out our plans and are delivering them: the environmental improvement plan; our integrated plan for water, which is tackling all forms of water pollution from transport and metal mines to forever chemicals and farming; and our storm overflow reduction plan, which I am pleased to announce today that we are planning to enshrine further in law. Through the Environment Act 2021, we will legislate for a clear target on storm overflow reduction in line with our plan. That clear, credible and costed legally binding target will add to our transparent and determined approach to solving the issue, while being careful with consumer bills.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know, having grown up in Liverpool, how beautiful the coastal constituency of Wirral West is. The Rivers Trust found that a sewer storm overflow in Caldy spilled 75 times in 2022, for a total of more than 1,700 hours, discharging directly into the Dee estuary. It is a very beautiful part of the world, where people go to enjoy the beach, let their children play, enjoy water sports and so forth. It is also very important environmentally—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady is meant to be making an intervention, not a speech. It has to be brief.
Dr Coffey
I share with the hon. Lady a love for that part of the north-west. I grew up there, and I used to cycle down to the River Mersey regularly on the Otterspool prom. I was not quite so much a visitor to the other side, apart from when I was visiting family elsewhere.
It is thanks to the openness of this Government in getting the monitoring done and publishing it that the scale of the scourge of sewage has been unveiled. The hon. Lady should welcome that. She should also welcome the active plans that we have been undertaking, with investment, so that even more action will be under way to reduce that sewage, if not eliminate it.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The constituency that I have the privilege of representing has the River Itchen and the River Hamble. Last week I met Southern Water, which now has an investment plan, purely because of the 91% of monitoring that this Government have put in place. Would that infrastructural investment have been able to go ahead if just 7% of our rivers were being monitored?
Dr Coffey
Quite clearly, the answer is no. There would not have been the scrutiny that there is today, nor would there have been the investigations that are already under way. The Hamble is a very precious sailing river that goes out into the Solent, so it is important that people can have confidence. That is why our plan has investment behind it so that we can continue to ensure that our waters are cleaner than ever before.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Dr Coffey
No, I will try to make a bit of progress.
After the many press releases, it is good finally to see a little bit of detail about what the Labour party would do about sewage, but to some extent it is already being done. Frankly, today feels like another gimmick, if not a sham, from the Labour party.
I understand that the shadow Secretary of State’s Bill, which has been hastily prepared—I believe it was published last night—is pulling Wales into this. We have already somewhat covered that issue, but based on his logic, I am not surprised that he is embarrassed about the Welsh record. Of the longest sewage discharges in Britain in 2022, the top two were in Wales. Three of the top five constituencies for hours of sewage discharged were in Wales, according to Top of the Poops. In 2022, the average number of spills per outflow in England was 23; in Wales it was 38. As I say, I am not seeking to blame the Welsh Government, but—speaking candidly—facts are our friends. Instead of fudge and obfuscation, we will keep going with our credible plans, because we are determined to clean up our waters.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree with Law Wales, which states that
“Senedd Cymru generally has legislative competence in relation to all aspects of water quality, water resources and water industry”?
Contrary to what the shadow Secretary of State said, this is the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
Alun Cairns
When my right hon. Friend introduced legislation, it was clearly aimed at England, but did she give the Welsh Government the option of extending those tighter restrictions to Wales to ensure a tighter and more uniform structure across both nations?
Dr Coffey
Understandably, the Environment Act principally addresses England. It is important that we respect devolution to the Welsh Government, who have it in their power to act and who do different things. I do not think they shy away from the fact that this is a difficult challenge. I commend them on the many beautiful beaches in Wales, which I have visited many times, including in my right hon. Friend’s constituency and in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). However, this is not straightforward and there is no overnight fix. Credible plans are needed, so this Government are right to be making progress.
Sir Robert Goodwill
Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), does the Secretary of State agree that Welsh Water is a not-for-profit organisation, so the shadow Secretary of State’s argument that dividends should be used to pay for improvements does not wash in Wales?
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
East Devon residents are rightly disgusted by sewage in our waters, and so am I; I am glad that the Secretary of State agrees. I live by the sea in Sidmouth, and I have repeatedly called on South West Water to clean up its act and our water. It has been fined millions thanks to this Government, and it should never reward failure for bonuses. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if it does not clean up its act, it must face the full force of the law, including unlimited penalties?
Dr Coffey
I absolutely agree. We exercised the necessary foresight in drawing up the legislation that became the Environment Act. We listened to the regulators, because we wanted to understand what was happening. Ofwat asked us to give it powers that would allow it to link dividend payments to performance, including environmental performance, and that is being done. We have completed the consultation, and we now need to review it, but we intend to ensure that the Environment Agency can impose unlimited penalties, which I think will be welcomed by my hon. Friend’s bill payers.
Matt Western
I have been listening intently to what the Secretary of State has had to say, and I admire her confidence, but that confidence is not shared by my constituents and many other members of the public when it comes to the condition of our rivers. May I invite her to come to my constituency and look at the River Avon? Perhaps she will don a cozzie, do a Gummer, and get in the water and see just how terrible it is.
Dr Coffey
I think I will be in Stratford-on-Avon in a few weeks, and I may well be able to find time to visit the hon. Gentleman. I have a lot of rivers, and of course the sea, in my own constituency, Suffolk Coastal, which stretches from the River Orwell in the south to the Hundred river in the very north, with many rivers in between. I am very conscious of the importance of this issue to our constituents, and I am proud of the fact that beaches in Felixstowe have had excellent bathing water status pretty much since the qualification arose. I am also aware that the Denes beach in Southwold lost that status, which is why, as a local Member of Parliament, I intervened, along with Anglian Water, to clean up the treatment works in Southwold. I am delighted to say that the beach is now back to a three-star rating. There is a case for ensuring that we have targeted activity, but overall, what I expect as Secretary of State is to receive the plans for every storm overflow that I have requested from the water companies by June.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
My father is a civil and structural engineer and I have engaged with him regularly on the subject of sewage pollution, but I think that one of his more familial aphorisms is particularly important: “To fix a problem, you have to know about it.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that we now have the 90-odd per cent. knowledge of what is going on that allows us to prioritise plans is one of the Government’s key achievements?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is wise in her years, and she is absolutely right. It is a case of trying to ensure that we have the necessary information. I repeat that the process of getting the information out there began a decade ago, and the Environment Act allows us to ensure that near-real-time information is available as well.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I listened closely to the speech from the shadow Secretary of State, which I have to say was pretty poor—and given that I have listened to quite a few Labour speeches in my time, that takes some beating. Can the Secretary of State shed any light on why a Labour party that hates privatised utilities would allow the self-monitoring of water quality unless it was intended to hide a problem?
Dr Coffey
What can I say? When the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) ran for the leadership of the Labour party, he suggested that there should be common ownership, which I would describe as nationalisation. We are seeing yet another flip-flop from the Labour party when its members realise that it is one thing to get into power and another thing actually being in it.
We need to continue with what we are trying to do to cut sewage discharges. We have heard about the target of 90% by 2030, and it is a headline-catching figure, but there has been no credible, costed plan in any previous media scrutiny or, indeed, today. That is why I suggest that the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is detached from reality and trying to pull a fast one with the public.
Our storm overflows discharge reduction plan outlines the largest infrastructure programme in water company history, and will deliver the toughest ever crackdown on sewage spills, transforming our Victorian sewerage infrastructure. The plan sets targets that will be underpinned by legally binding changes to company permits, designed to front-load action in particularly important areas such as bathing waters. To ensure that these ambitious targets are realised, I have also asked the water industry to produce a detailed action plan for every single storm overflow in England by June.
A critical element in the development of these targets and our plan was an assessment of technical deliverability and cost, which is why the Government published a full impact assessment and an additional report on the costs of eliminating discharges from storm overflows. If the shadow Secretary of State wants to deliver a 90% reduction by 2030, it would have been helpful for him to inform the House how he plans to practically deliver £56 billion worth of capital projects in the next seven years, let alone separate enough combined pipes to go almost two and a half times around the earth in those seven years, or indeed build the equivalent of 40,000 Olympic-size swimming pools of additional storage capacity. What will the Labour party’s proposals really mean for customers’ bills? Even the hon. Gentleman is not naive enough to think that there is a magic money tree to pay for this.
Anthony Mangnall
The Secretary of State has just mentioned the important issue of water companies producing plans. Can she reassure me, and all the people of the south-west and south Devon in particular, that those plans will have to be enforced, and that we will be keeping a very close eye on their implementation?
Dr Coffey
I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will continue to ensure that the licence fees and the costs of permits cover inspections, and we will consider further what additional funding changes might be needed for that purpose.
Perhaps Labour intended to introduce a sewage tax or something similar, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, although it would take such a tax some 500 years to fund the level of investment required. That is, dare I say, another classic Liberal Democrat policy—all soundbite but detached from reality. Meanwhile, we have an ambitious, credible and realistic plan.
As for mandatory sewage outlet monitoring, the Government are already doing that; 91% is already in place, and the rest will be completed by the end of the year. The Environment Agency will also ensure that water companies carry out monitoring in line with their permit conditions. The monitoring requirements introduced by the Government have been instrumental in enabling the regulators to undertake the largest criminal and civil investigations of sewage discharges in water company history, covering more than 2,200 treatment works. Through powers in our landmark Environment Act, we are also making it a legal requirement for the near real time data on discharges to be available to the public, and the consultation on those regulations is live now. We are going even further by placing a duty directly on water companies to monitor the water quality impact upstream and downstream of all their assets—not just storm overflows but wastewater treatment works as well.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
This is not just the responsibility of the water companies, because it is not just water assets that discharge into our rivers. Within a short section of the River Tame in Greater Manchester there are three water assets, but there are also Johnson brook and Wilson brook. Johnson brook regularly discharges raw sewage into the Tame because of a misconnected sewer somewhere along the reaches of that brook, and Wilson brook regularly discharges chemicals into the Tame because of industrial processes. The Environment Agency’s actions are appalling. What more is the Secretary of State doing—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We cannot have these long interventions, because too many Members want to speak. It is simply not fair.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman has raised a very specific constituency matter. I am sure that if he were to write to me or to the Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), we could follow it up.
I am conscious that a great many Members have applied to speak today, but I want to make a few more points clear. I have been advised by my officials that issuing automatic penalties could actually limit subsequent liability for more serious enforcement action and higher penalties when an investigation found that an incident was more severe than was initially thought. When a pollution incident occurs, the severity of the incident and the degree of culpability need to be properly investigated. It is through such proper investigation that the Environment Agency can determine the most appropriate response, including criminal prosecution for the most serious incidents.
I am sure that the policy is well intentioned, but it strongly risks making enforcement weaker and potentially letting the most serious polluters off the hook. Water companies must be liable for any illegal activity: polluters must pay. That is why, since 2015, the Environment Agency has carried out more than 50 prosecutions, securing court fines of over £140 million, including the record-breaking fine of £90 million handed to Southern Water. Again, we are going further to ensure that water companies face substantial penalties, which are easier to deploy than going through the courts. We are consulting on reforms to the civil penalties that the Environment Agency can issue to make the process quicker and easier. As I have said, the Government’s preferred option is to remove the cap on penalties entirely, which would pave the way for unlimited penalties for water companies that break the rules.
There is a great deal more that I could have said, but we listened to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton for more than half an hour, and it is important for other Members to be able to contribute to the debate.
It is the role of Ofwat to scrutinise proposals from the water companies to make sure that customers get good value for money. We will try to carry out other activities such as trying to reduce the cost of these new projects overall, but I also want to flag up that we will continue to ensure that we deliver our integrated plan for water. It is a blueprint for a truly national effort to meet the stretching targets that we set through the Environment Act 2021, and it includes actions to tackle every source of pollution, including sewage discharge and pollution from agriculture, plastics, road run-off, chemicals and pesticides. The plan is underpinned by significant investment. Its scale and deliverability, plus the detail of it, mean that it will go further and faster than anything we have ever done before, and it is certainly going further and faster than most developed nations have ever gone before.
In summary: Labour wants monitoring; we have already delivered it. Labour wants fines; we have delivered record fines. Labour wants larger penalties; we are making them unlimited. Labour says that it wants stronger sanctions, but it would in effect weaken them. Labour wants a plan; we have already published one. Ours is fully costed and credible. Labour says that its plans will not impact household bills, but it cannot say how much they will cost. It was a Labour Government who were taken to court by the European Union for allowing the discharge of sewage, and 13 years later in Wales, where Labour is actually in government, they are discharging sewage almost twice as often as in England. That is not a plan; it is an uncosted political game and a recipe for tripling the average water bill. I encourage the House to support our amendment today, to stop the false attacks and to focus on delivering cleaner water. That is something that all our constituents want.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It is obvious that an awful lot of people want to speak this afternoon, so we will start with a time limit of four minutes—I am sorry, not five minutes—which will quickly go down to three minutes, so I advise most people sitting in the Chamber to look at their notes and cut them in half.
Sally-Ann Hart
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). I understand he emailed my office on 7 September last year and received a response.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for setting the record straight with that point of order, and I see that the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton has acknowledged her apology.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
In September 2021, I stood in this place and called for an investigation into the activities of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water. I asked for Ofwat and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to investigate its practices. I did this because it has responsibility for parts of the Wirral, Cheshire, Gloucestershire and Herefordshire. My request was based on an appalling record that has seen communities having their water cut off for days and their rivers being polluted with sewage. I am sad to report not only that these calls have been met with a deafening silence but that things have got worse. The Rivers Garw, Tawe, Teifi, Usk and Taff and even the River Wye are six of the most polluted rivers in UK. What they all have in common is that they are the responsibility of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water. Last month, research found that raw sewage was discharged in Islwyn for more than 9,179 hours in 1,850 sewage dumping events. Natural Resources Wales has said that there will be no salmon in Welsh rivers within 20 years.
What is Dŵr Cymru’s response to this record of shame? It is to reward its chief executive, Peter Perry, with a bonus of £232,000, on top of his basic salary of £332,000. This is a company serving some of the most deprived and isolated communities in the country. When I wrote to him to query his pay, he was proud to tell me that he had worked his way up from being an apprentice. He said:
“My pay is not determined by me. It is not influenced by me.”
He went on to claim that he was pretty much the lowest paid of his peers in England and Wales. Try telling that to the customers who are struggling to pay the second highest bills in the country. Just over the border, Severn Trent Water has some of the lowest bills. The worst thing is that it is impossible to switch suppliers. Mr Perry is not an isolated case. In 2020-21, three executive directors were paid bonuses of £931,000. At the same time, raw sewage was dumped into Welsh rivers 100,000 times. It all adds up to the same thing: Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water is profiting from pollution.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the recourse that we are expecting from the Labour Welsh Government on storm overflows is so late?
Chris Evans
I think the hon. Gentleman will have to refer that question to the Welsh Government, but I thank him for that little bit of mischief and for the extra minute he has just given me.
It is my sincere hope that, if this motion passes, we will see the end of these unwarranted, unfair bonuses while imposing uncapped fines on the companies that are polluting our beautiful rivers. For me, this goes much deeper than simple profiteering. I grew up along the River Taff, and as I looked into the river, I would see the colours of the rainbow. To my young mind, it seemed that rainbows lived in the river. But they were not rainbows; they were the thick film of oil polluting our rivers. That was over 30 years ago. Since then, our Welsh valleys have become green and beautiful, with our newly emerging tourism industry. It is not uncommon to see people fishing, kayaking and wild swimming, but all those activities are at risk. It is amazing, when we have spent so long cleaning up our rivers, that all that work is being undone by the work of one company.
Although I have to hand it to Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water: it is good at crisis communications. According to the chief executive, in the past year the company has spent over £800,000 on advertising and public affairs. When I spoke out about this 18 months ago, the public affairs officer sent an email defending the company’s practices within minutes of me sitting down. It is certainly busy sending endless emails to politicians.
Alun Cairns
I understand and share many of the concerns the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, but does he recognise that the legislative responsibility for restrictions in this area lies with the Welsh Government? Does he share my concern and disappointment that the restrictions in Wales are nowhere near as tight as those that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is proposing to introduce in England? Does he agree that we should introduce a common system adopting the high standards that she talked about?
Chris Evans
The right hon. Gentleman is probably enjoying my speech because he thinks that this is the responsibility of the Welsh Government, but it goes much deeper than that. This pollution affects us all; it affects our children, it affects everybody. We have to find a way to work together on this. I am not going to stand back and allow Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water to carry on like this just because it hides behind the fact that it is a non-profit. Something needs to be done and it needs to be done now. That means working in partnership with this Government and the Welsh Government. I will support any measures to work together on this because it goes much deeper than what we are doing at the moment.
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water likes to send out tweets highlighting schemes to save customers money. It also runs television adverts with helpful tips for saving money, under the banner “For Wales”, giving the impression that it is somehow linked to the Welsh Government. To top off my frustration with the company, I recently had a request from the polling company Ipsos MORI, as many of us do. The companies that fund the surveys remain anonymous, but it did not take much to deduce who it was when I was asked such questions as “How would you rate Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water’s performance?” and “Do you know about its plans to end pollution in Wales?” It did not take a genius to work out who had funded that survey. When I complained, I was told by the public affairs department, with an apology, that I should not have been contacted because of my views on the company. The money spent on this type of work would be better used to improve its service rather than its reputation.
As I have said, it is difficult to speak out on this matter but I genuinely believe that things need to be done now. Mr Perry told a Senedd Committee that sewage discharges
“are not where we want to be”.
People are paying an average of £499 a year for their bills and they desperately need a return on those bills. I hope that by supporting this motion today we can give them some sort of recompense for what they are going through.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). I welcome what he said about trying to work cross-party to solve this problem. That is what I have been doing since this Parliament began. I do not want to dwell on the private Member’s Bill that I introduced over three years ago, but it is surprising that it has taken the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) three years to come up with his own private Member’s Bill. Having read it, it seems to me that he has not read the Environment Act 2021, introduced by this Government a year and a half ago. The Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill is one of the weakest documents I have ever seen, and it was clearly concocted and manufactured purely for the purposes of this debate. As he said in his opening speech, the Bill was introduced to benefit Labour candidates in the next parliamentary election, whenever it comes, and in next month’s local elections. The political opportunism is shameful.
However, in the spirit of seeking to focus my remarks on something useful, I will dissect some of the specific errors in the Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill. First, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, clause 1 talks about water quality monitoring requirements. Two years ago, the Environmental Audit Committee’s “Water quality in rivers” report specifically called for the improved monitoring of our waterways. We have heard that Lord Benyon, the Conservative rivers Minister at the time, introduced monitoring as a result, and we are nearly at 100%. We called for upstream and downstream monitoring of the impact of discharges into rivers, which is precisely what was included in the Environment Act. Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to accelerate the measure to bring it into effect from 1 October, which is completely unrealistic. We have not yet agreed the technical specifications to be able to test water for the four parameters, so there is no supply chain in place to do that. Hopeless.
Clause 2 of the Bill talks about adverse impacts and seeks to accelerate and define the progressive reduction of sewage discharges, which are also covered by the Environment Act, to try to prevent 90% of such discharges by 2030. The Secretary of State has said there is no clarity on how much that would cost, but we know that it could cost hundreds of billions of pounds, adding £1,000 to customers’ bills and diverting the entire construction industry to fix the problem. Over the next seven years, which hospitals and schools would not be built as a result of Labour’s proposal?
Anthony Mangnall
My right hon. Friend is making an extraordinarily important point about finding a balance between attracting investment and ensuring that work is delivered to address the problem. Can we go further in encouraging water companies to keep that balance in order?
Philip Dunne
I will come on to that in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes the valid point that there is not enough dividend income for the water companies to pay for the billions of pounds in the storm overflows discharge reduction plan, as the Labour party fancifully suggests. The companies cannot pass the whole bill on to customers, so they have to be able to go to the markets, which are actively looking to invest in green projects of this nature. The money is there, but it will only be delivered through the private sector.
Clause 3 of the Bill talks about financial penalties. Labour is calling for penalties for the use of storm overflows. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, this is a question of degree. We already have penalties, and it is the Conservatives who introduced the water restoration fund, on which we are currently consulting, so that the proceeds of any fines resulting from the 2,000 permit breaches that are currently being investigated by Ofwat and the Environment Agency, as a result of this Government’s direction, will make the polluter pay. That is happening. The Labour motion suggests that it could happen instantly, but that would put the entire water system in disarray. This is another completely unrealistic proposition.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is calling on the Government to produce a discharge strategy, so he clearly has not read the storm overflows discharge reduction plan that the Government published a year ago. He also calls for a legal obligation to consult Welsh Ministers. Frankly, we have just heard about the appalling performance of Welsh Water under this Welsh Government. For further clarity, the 83,000 spills in Wales represent almost 22% of the total number of spillages across England and Wales. The last time I looked, Wales represented about 5% of the UK population, not 22%. That is a hopeless example, and the last thing we should do is take advice from the Welsh Government.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Parliament debated sewerage in the summer of 1858, during the great stink. In every respect, it beggars belief that, after 165 years of technological advancement and social progress, we are still debating sewage pollution in our waterways, but we are because something is going terribly wrong. The status quo is not working, and it is time to consign sewage pollution to history.
Water is not just another commodity. It is a vital public resource, and we should manage it for the public good. I accept that the task of reforming the water industry for the public good is huge, and we have to work together to get it right. Water is essential but, let us be honest, filth is found in nearly every UK waterway. In Barnsley, for example, Yorkshire Water pumped raw sewage into our rivers and streams for 13,228 hours in 2022, and that figure is almost certainly an underestimate because monitoring budgets have been cut. It has not helped that, due to ever tighter budgets, the Environment Agency’s role in monitoring and, where necessary, prosecuting illegal dumping in our waterways has been curbed. Since 2010, environmental protection funding has dropped by 80% and enforcement funding by 40%. Prosecutions fell from almost 800 in 2007-08 to just 17 in 2020-21.
Although England’s main water companies were cautioned or fined hundreds of times for sewage dumping between 2010 and 2021, the total fines amounted to just 0.7% of their profits. Water companies paid £57 billion in dividends between privatisation in 1991 and 2019. Combined with the servicing of debt, those shareholder payouts have added around £93 to average yearly bills. This is not some operational issue that can be solved by small tweaks to the failing system; it is a systemic problem that requires transformative action and an approach that sees water as a basic necessity rather than as a commodity.
The current arrangements for regulating the water industry mean that the regulator is simply not equipped to tackle the challenges we face. We need a reformed regulator that is focused on protecting the environment and the public. It should have a social and environmental mission, and a responsibility for helping to push through a co-ordinated plan to address climate change, pollution and infrastructure upgrades. Crucially, a reformed regulator should bring together stakeholders, including local and regional government, community groups, businesses and experts. Campaigners should also be included, not least Feargal Sharkey, who has worked tirelessly to clean up our waterways.
Regulating water for the public good means safe, sewage-free waterways and affordable bills that provide value for money to consumers. Cleaning up our water has always been a political choice, and it is in the Government’s gift if they think it is time for fundamental change. I hope they do, but I strongly support Labour’s motion because it is past time that we stopped managing our public resources for private profit. Instead, we should support them for the public good.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the next speaker, the time limit will go down to three minutes.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
This is an important issue, and I agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) that all parties in this place should work to improve what is a very difficult situation for our constituents and the country.
My constituency has eight chalk streams, and I have been campaigning for many years to improve their quality, often with support from Labour Members such as Martin Salter—he is a keen angler—and cross-party members of the all-party parliamentary group on chalk streams, which I helped to set up.
I was shocked when two of my substantial chalk streams, the Beane and the Mimram, ran dry in 2007. I took the Labour Minister to see them, and he was shocked by their condition. The World Wide Fund for Nature joined me and others in starting a campaign, “Rivers on the Edge”, to reduce the huge amount of water being abstracted from these streams. We were successful in that campaign, although by then the Government had changed. It then became clear that not only were these poor streams being abstracted, but they faced pollution, problems with agricultural practice next to them, with nitrates going into them, and all sorts of other problems, including sewage overflow.
I pay tribute to Charles Rangeley-Wilson, who has been involved in all the campaigns, including those against pollution and soil erosion, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), whose Bill I supported; we both rebelled slightly against the Government on one occasion over that issue. Charles chaired Catchment Based Approach in producing a restoration strategy for chalk streams, which is a good document that the Government support. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) came to its launch by the River Mimram in my constituency, and it sets out a national chalk streams strategy. Although many of its recommendations are not about the problem of sewage overflows, it does cover that.
The Government have taken powers in the Environment Act 2021 and the Agriculture Act 2020 that would enable a catchment-based approach to tackling the range of issues involved in river quality. The water plan, which has been released recently, shows where the investment would be, with fines imposed and money reinvested in improving water quality. One of the main recommendations was to have some sort of protection and priority status for chalk streams. I know that the Secretary of State is concentrating on water generally, but Lord Trenchard has tabled an amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and I wonder whether she would be prepared to consider it.
We know that the state of our rivers and streams is not what it should be, but between 2000 and 2010 we really did not know that, because the monitoring did not take place. It came as a shock that our rivers were in the state they were in. I welcome the fact that the Government are now being transparent, are committing to targets and are really taking this on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The time limit has now reduced to three minutes.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Pope Francis said in 2015 in his encyclical, “Laudato si”:
“The earth, our home, is beginning to look…like an immense pile of filth.”
He was not wrong when it comes to the rivers in the UK. I thank my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for coming, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), to a meeting at Jackson’s Boat, on the trans-Pennine trail, on the River Mersey in my constituency. We met Jamie Woodward, the physical geography professor from Manchester University who is doing so much work for us on the Mersey in our local area.
When we met, we were so pleased to see how well the Mersey was being used by cyclists, walkers and kayakers. However, according to the Environment Agency data, in my constituency United Utilities is the worst offender for dumping sewage into our local rivers and coastal waters. It pains me to say that, because I generally have a great relationship with United Utilities—it helps with my cost of living events all the time—but it had almost 70,000 discharges into our regional waterways. The smoking gun or incontrovertible proof is the loo roll, sanitary ware and baby wipes that bedeck tree roots, branches and plants along the course of the river. I cycle along it from my constituency to Stockport, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), every week and see this with my own eyes.
I may have misheard the Secretary of State, but I cannot go along with her idea that the River Mersey is getting cleaner. Greenpeace recently said that it is more polluted than the great Pacific garbage patch, as a result of a recent scientific investigation that it carried out. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who is sitting next to the Secretary of State, has done great work on floodplains and flood alleviation, so I am not just making a party political point.
The River Mersey rises in Stockport and heads through the north-west to Liverpool bay. In 2022, it was 70 miles of pollution, with raw sewage being pumped into the water 1,187 times, with the pumping of untreated human faeces and urine happening for 3,346 hours. This issue is too important for us all. There are existential consequences for our environment, for our public health and for businesses that rely on the beauty and nature to attract business and investment. These waters are the same ones that the children of United Utilities staff and its shareholders wade through. It is unconscionable that it continues these practices in full knowledge of that. I urge it and its pension funds, Lazard Asset Management, BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, not to sanction this any longer. I urge them to do the right thing today.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I am pleased to be here again with an opportunity to discuss this important issue. Improving water quality, be it of our river systems or coastal environments, is incredibly important and all of us in this House care deeply about it. That is why I was pleased to vote for the Environment Act, which put in place key mechanisms, one of which obliges all water companies to monitor water quality and publish real-time data on storm overflows. We are nearly at a position where we will have 100% data collection.
The second mechanism is investment, with a requirement on all water companies to deliver up to £56 billion of capital investment over the next 25 years in improving our water quality. Thirdly, the Secretary of State can issue a direction on water companies to ensure that they enact their ability to clean up our rivers. The fourth mechanism is immediate investment, with direct investment of up to £7 billion in the next 25 years.
All those are great measures, but it is has to be noted that the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens actively voted against them. They voted against direct investment of £56 billion to clean up our rivers. All of us should not forget that during this debate. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have also brought out the plan for water, with a requirement actively to reinvest all fines on water companies into schemes to improve our environment. I am pleased that the Conservatives have brought that forward.
Ilkley has the River Wharfe, the first river to be awarded bathing water status in the UK. That application was generated by the Ilkley Clean River Group, which worked incredibly hard to get it over the line. I had many a conversation with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and the Secretary of State on that. What does it deliver? More involvement in active monitoring and Yorkshire Water is investing up to £13 million in infrastructure work in Ilkley. All those mechanisms will help to improve the River Wharfe in my constituency.
So I am pleased about the Environment Act and the measures we have brought forward, but I am incredibly disappointed that the Labour party is using this opportunity to proactively do something that all Conservative Members are doing already: we are bringing forward positive measures that are going to help clean up our river systems. It is disappointing that once again the Opposition are choosing to play party politics with something that is much more important to our constituents: cleaning up our river systems.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
We all dream of crystal-clear rivers winding their way through the beautiful British countryside, into our towns and cities, and out into a clean and glistening sea. Sadly, that is not the image that constituents up and down the country are familiar with. Instead, they are faced with the reality of endless hours of raw sewage being dumped into our rivers.
The Government have been weak on water companies and soft on sewage. As a result, our rivers and seas are plagued by sewage, agricultural run-off and diffuse pollution. Shockingly, analysis shows that sewage dumping is taking place every two and a half minutes. We all know that the environmental consequences are catastrophic, but it is not just the environment and the wildlife that are affected. The Tory sewage scandal has serious consequences for public health and for businesses that rely on the beauty and nature of Britain to attract visitors and thrive.
That is certainly the case in my constituency. The River Dee, which flows through it, is one of Chester’s greatest assets, playing a vital part in our history and day-to-day life. The Groves, on the riverbank, is home to numerous businesses, which rely on the beauty and of course the cleanliness of the river. It is a popular destination for Cestrians and visitors alike to enjoy leisure activities. That is why, when I was elected at the end of last year, one of my first acts was to bring together Welsh Water, local river groups, businesses and residents for a summit on the Dee to set out a vision for a clean river, free from the frequent sewage discharges that we see today.
Businesses and sports clubs that rely on the river have told me of the serious consequences that they are facing: people are less keen to take part in river-based activities, and customers are even turned away from hospitality businesses on days when the smell is too bad. Chester businesses are losing trade as a direct result of the Government’s sewage scandal. Indeed, on previous occasions, the world-famous Chester regatta—the oldest regatta in the world, which is celebrating its 290th anniversary this year—has had to be abandoned because of sewage discharges. I sincerely hope that, by the time of its 300th anniversary, sewage discharges will be a thing of the past.
According to data published by the Rivers Trust, a total of 919 hours’ worth of untreated sewage and storm water was discharged into the river in 2020. Despite nearly half a billion pounds being cut from the budget by central Government in the past 13 years, innovative projects such as Cheshire West and Chester Council’s new 1 km rainwater drainage tunnel are helping to alleviate the pressure on our sewage system and reduce the amount of foul waste that ends up in the Dee. Only half the funding towards the drain costs was provided by Government. That is just a drop in the ocean—or rather a drop in Dee—of what is actually needed to tackle the scale of the problem. The scale of change needed to eradicate—
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
We all care about this issue. I am a Cornish MP and know more than anyone how difficult the issue is for constituents who really care not just about the quality of the water in which they swim, but about marine life and the importance of our rivers for supporting really good ecological systems. We often refer in this place to the responsibilities of the water companies, but we do not talk about the fact that what must go into the system has to come out somewhere. When we ask children in primary school, they understand that, if we were to switch off storm overflows tomorrow, the sewage and all the waste would come up in their homes. The idea that we should switch those off today and appease all our voters is ludicrous, because they will soon be arguing and chasing us down the street because of what we have done to their homes.
Let me give an example. In Cornwall, in order to reduce storm overflows, septic tanks could not be emptied last year. That meant care homes, private homes and businesses could not clean out their septic tanks. It was havoc. It was driven by the need to clean up what we put on our land, which I support, and by the need to reduce storm overflows, which I also support, but it was done in a way that did not understand what the immediate implications would be. It was a massive problem. Following a lot of pressure from MPs, the Environment Agency adjusted the advice to allow us to get round that. As a result, South West Water is building in massive capacity—treatment plants to store this stuff in times of high waterfall. We need to be careful that what we ask for does not create alternative consequences that we would not want in our own homes and the homes of our constituents.
However, this is not about Government doing nothing. I have had conversations with the Minister about this going back many years. Today, because of her actions and the actions of others, £50 million is being spent on the Isles of Scilly alone to clean up the water that people drink and how the sewage is treated and then put into the sea. That money is being spent because the Government forced that to happen and ensured that it happened. I have had money spent in St Ives, Carbis Bay and St Erth—a massive amount of money has been spent in St Erth where the treatment plant is—Mousehole, Newland and Porthleven. My experience as an MP is that, when we engage constructively with Ministers and the water companies, we can get these things done and done quickly—or at least more quickly than was happening previously.
I find this whole debate infuriating because it fails to take broader responsibility on the question of how we communicate with our constituents about their water use, how we make sure that councils reduce the run-off into combined sewage systems, and how we work with farmers to understand how we can plough differently to stop water pouring into the water systems. This is not just about beating up water companies, on which the Government introduced regulation to correct the problem as soon as we can.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Having discarded my carefully crafted speech, I will make just a few key points.
I think the Secretary of State fails to understand just how strongly our constituents feel about the issue of pollution in our waterways. It is one of the key issues that my constituents talk to me about and not just now—they have been doing so for a while. In April 2021, I had a Westminster Hall debate on this very issue as a result of that pressure from constituents, so this has been a consistent theme. That was followed by the many debates we had during the progress of the Environment Bill on the extent of action that should be taken on the issue, and we know how much public interest there was on the issue.
As co-chair of the all-party water group, I have the chance to speak regularly to water companies—not just my own—and to the regulators to find out what is happening, so I know about the changes that are being proposed. And that is as far as it goes. This morning, we had a presentation from David Black, the chief executive of Ofwat, explaining the current framework. But the fact is that the regulators—both the financial regulators of water, Ofwat, and the environmental regulators—are guided by Government action and Government decisions. Frankly, I do not believe we are going far enough or fast enough in resolving the issue of combined sewer overflows. How can it be right that there are another 27 years to go before we actually reach a stage where we have resolved the problem? Therefore, I think the Government plans are lacking ambition and should go further.
In the end, it is the Government who set the parameters of regulation and the fact is, as I have said, that they lack ambition. Our constituents want to see improvement much earlier than is being proposed. They want to be able to bathe in rivers and seas without fearing that they will be contaminated by sewage overflow and effluent. That is why I support Labour’s plan to act much more swiftly and to end this scandal of sewage discharges into rivers and seas. I hope the Government will step up their action to make sure that the scandal ends.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
We are here today thanks to the work of the Environmental Audit Committee—work that was largely led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who is not in his place at the moment, and who is far too modest to take a lot of the plaudits for why we are here now.
Constituents talk to me about sewage dumping in the sea. Nine out of 10 times I am challenged, they have not been given the proper information, I am sad to say. What has been pumped out to them is largely disingenuous and a mischaracterisation of what is a deeply serious issue. After the recent weeks of gutter politics from the Opposition, it seems that they have not changed their spots today. In many cases, it is dangerous for MPs to have some of these accusations levelled at them. What we should be doing today is being responsible and showing what the Government really have done.
I say as a member of the EAC that it was our work that brought to the Government’s attention the appalling conduct of the water companies and the lackadaisical behaviour of the Environment Agency. Our work largely led to the strengthening of the Environment Act and what we have today—all courtesy of the water quality in rivers inquiry inspired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow.
Of course CSOs must be phased out, but we simply cannot do that overnight, not unless we want to see rainwater and sewage mixed together coming up through our Victorian network into our homes and streets. However, the fact is that we did not know what was happening with any great visibility until the EAC shone a light on it. Our job in this House is to be responsible legislators. We cannot vote for unworkable pieces of law, and the Duke of Wellington amendment that led to this whole debate was unworkable. We cannot turn off CSOs after heavy rainfall tomorrow—that is not feasible—but what is feasible is the plan of action we have now.
In my constituency, we have been responsible. Anglian Water is investing £30 million in infrastructure to improve sites across my region, including dealing with sewage outflows. The responsible actions of this Government put us well ahead of many countries across the world, including, in Europe, France and Germany.
If there is one statistic I could leave the Labour party with, it would be that it is a Conservative Government who have increased the percentage of bathing waters classified as good or excellent from 76% in 2010 to 93% in 2022. That is a record of serious improvement and the new plan for water that we have set out is a serious step forward in tackling this problem.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
To be frank, for the past three or four years, my team and I have had to discuss excrement on an almost daily basis. It is the stuff ruining the lives of my constituents in Whitstable.
In a coastal town such as ours, so much revolves around the sea: our sailing clubs, seafood and hospitality businesses, and our reputation as a top British tourist destination. Whitstable is always thriving, busy with dog walkers, boats coming and going and visitors enjoying a pint at the Neptune or a tub of locally caught whelks with their chips, but there are days when regular swimmers and sailors cannot enjoy our waters at all, something we see far too often.
So-called rare storm events are not that at all. We have not had any storms, yet Southern Water has again been releasing sewage water into the sea for 24 hours straight this weekend—why? Whitstable is still a great place to visit, but while these incidents keep happening, there is a real danger to UK tourism, which has already suffered a great hit to visitor numbers since Brexit. French schoolchildren, who did not previously require a passport, are no longer flocking to Canterbury’s market stalls or studying at our language schools. We simply cannot afford the added damage that the headlines about sewage are doing to our economy.
However, it seems that not everyone is suffering. Those at the top of the water companies can probably afford to holiday elsewhere, while my constituents, whose incomes have taken a considerable hit, are expected to pay their water bills in full. It is little wonder that many are really angry about this. SOS Whitstable is a campaign group that was formed following a public meeting I held in the summer of 2021 so that residents could directly confront the bosses of Southern Water. It is a group of very driven and knowledgeable campaigners who give their time for free, holding the water company to account and refusing to let it get away with dumping sewage on our beaches.
SOS Whitstable recently appeared in Paul Whitehouse’s excellent, must-watch BBC documentary “Our Troubled Rivers”. I urge anyone who wants to understand more about this situation to watch it on catch-up. SOS also started a petition, recently handed in to No. 10, calling on the Government to reconsider renationalising the water industry.
I have asked three Secretaries of State to visit our town and hear from residents about exactly how they are affected. I say to the current Secretary of State, “Please come and take me up on that offer and listen to our sailors, our swimmers and our tourist businesses.”
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Most colleagues on the Government Benches, myself included, have had a fair bit of what I like to call online sewage since the landmark Environment Act 2021 was passed, not least since the Duke of Wellington’s amendment was discussed in this House. I must say that Opposition parties like to talk the talk, but they are not walking the walk, as this Government are doing.
I served on the Bill Committee for the 2021 Act, and I was proud to do so, because it was a landmark piece of legislation and the first time any Government were tackling the problem. The Opposition Members on that Bill Committee did not say anything like the things they like to say in the Chamber. They were constructive and we all came together as a good Bill Committee should to try to make the best possible piece of legislation, which we did.
Speaking as someone who likes to swim in the sea and has done so since I was a kid, I know that anyone else who grew up near the sea will remember—if they are truthful—that they will have swum past, I am sorry to say, tampons, sanitary towels and actual faeces in the water. It was not just in Cornwall; I grew up in the north-east, off Scarborough, and it was happening there as well.
Some of the surfers in Cornwall joke that in the 1970s they would go to the toilet at the top of their village and watch it come out through the sewerage when they got down to the bottom—and that is not a lie; it actually happened. To say that this is a Tory sewage crisis is absolutely ridiculous. This is a Tory sewage solution. We are finally grasping this problem and getting to the nub of it.
Last October in St Agnes, there was a big run-off that was videoed and made national headlines. It looked awful. We learned that it was run-off; we have to believe that, because that is what South West Water and the Environment Agency say, but my constituents are convinced it was more than that, because of the smell that they smelled. I ask the Secretary of State: can we have better and faster testing for those overflows when we are not sure what is happening? If we knew what was in the water, we could have a more positive campaign by local authorities and water companies to say, “This water is now safe to swim in and you will not get ill from it.” I hope the work we are doing now will lead to that.
South West Water is doing a lot of work around the Fal, including at the Falmouth sewage treatment works, Old Hill, 24 North Parade and Prince of Wales Pier. Some £13.2 million will be spent by 2025 and £40 million by 2030. South West Water is a one-star company that needs to get back to being a four-star company; it is starting to do the work, but there is much more to do. If I may make one final plea to the Secretary of State, when the consultation has finished, can we ensure that the fines imposed on water companies go back into fixing these problems? That will help us along the way.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Last year in my constituency there were 685 sewage spills, the total duration of which came to more than 2,000 hours. Needless to say, my constituents have noticed them.
I was recently contacted by 85 year 5 pupils from Moorside Primary School in Lancaster who are particularly concerned about pollution in Lake Windermere and the impact it is having on wildlife and the environment. I want to give a voice to those young constituents of mine today. One pupil, Karina, says that it feels as if
“the lake is no longer a tranquil body of water it is just a mass of raw grotesque sewage”.
They inform me that the Ambleside treatment works is built for 5,000 people, even though millions visit the area every single year. They worry that the situation is getting worse and highlight the fact that in 2016 there were around 100,000 hours of spills by water companies in England, but by 2021 that had increased to 2.5 million.
My constituents are troubled by the impact on local wildlife, especially the number of dead fish that have been seen in the area and the knock-on impact that will have on birds such as kingfishers. My young constituents are angry about the £600 million in profits made by United Utilities, which they feel should be spent on addressing sewage spills in Lake Windermere. They accept that United Utilities is investing £40 million in trying to address some of the problems, but, as James from year 5 perceptively highlights,
“intelligent people know that they could be investing a lot more”,
especially given their profits, and Anya says it is “too little too late”.
The pupils highlight that the spills do not only affect animals; while they are worried for their pets, especially the dogs who wade in Lake Windermere, they are also worried about the impact on people. As Freya highlights,
“innocent little children who go paddling in the sewage filled lake could end up becoming sick and have diarrhoea and end up going to hospital”.
Evie asks:
“Is it acceptable to put raw sewage into our lakes…or should the government put a stop it to it?”
My view is that the Government should put a stop to it, and I would be grateful if the Minister answered Evie’s question in her response.
No one should have to worry about whether they can enjoy areas of outstanding natural beauty or whether they will encounter raw sewage by taking a dip in our waters. No business should have to worry about Tory-sanctioned sewage dumping impacting their trade. If Tory MPs fail to support today’s motion, they will be voting again to continue dumping sewage, and it is clear from the letters I have received from more 80 children in my constituency that they can see that that would stink.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Gedling’s southern border is the River Trent between Colwick and Burton Joyce. It is popular with boaters, walkers and fishermen and is probably one of the prettiest parts of my constituency. With other parts such as Gedling village, which has the Ouse Dyke running through it, it makes Gedling a great place to live. There is a legitimate public concern about the quality of the water in those places, a concern that I share.
Listening to some of the debate, one might think that no sewage was ever dumped in a river before 2010, which, of course, is not the case. The problems that we are dealing with are a legacy of a combined Victorian sewer system that carries both waste and surface run-off. Indeed, while researching a completely unrelated subject recently, I came across an article in The Times from 20 April 1923. It contains a Ministry of Agriculture circular about pollution that says:
“In this country, except in special localities, the most usual kind of pollution is sewage in bulk so great that it de-oxygenates the water and so suffocates the fish.”
Fortunately, our river quality has moved on quite a way since then. Certainly, in Colwick—just a couple of hundred yards beyond the boundary of my constituency—they are building a new salmon fish pass because of the increased number of salmon in the River Trent, which is a good sign. However, I acknowledge that there is a serious problem to solve, so I welcome the storm overflows discharge reduction plan and the plan for water, which will deliver £56 billion-worth of investment to reduce storm overflows, prosecute polluting water companies, and introduce unlimited fines and increased and better monitoring.
I understand that there will be concern about whether that change is happening fast enough—many will feel that it is not—but government is about making difficult choices. We could stop storm overflows tomorrow by stopping surface run-off, but I understand that doing so would make 140,000 homes in the Severn Trent Water region liable to flooding, which would be unacceptable. We have also heard about introducing uncosted measures. Those could triple the cost of a water bill, which, given the cost of living issues that we face at the moment, would be equally unacceptable.
I am not prepared to back motions that would increase water bills at this difficult time or cause such unconscionable consequences. We have a detailed and costed plan that will make a difference to the quality of our water, and we should stick with it.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) —my Greater Manchester neighbours—made powerful contributions highlighting the important issues that we face in Greater Manchester.
According to Environment Agency data from last year, United Utilities—the water company that covers the north-west of England—was the most polluting water company of them all. Despite that, the outgoing chief executive made £1.4 million from the sale of shares in the business. That goes to the heart of the problem: if the Government do not hold private water companies to account with existing legislation and by creating new mechanisms to do so, they are rewarding catastrophic environmental damage. How is it that since privatisation, water bills have risen by 40% while £72 billion has gone to private water company shareholders?
Indeed, much-needed investment in infrastructure has fallen by 15%. According to the Financial Times, English water companies leak about 20% of water supply, compared with just 5% in Germany. United Utilities and Yorkshire Water alone were responsible for 124,000 of the sewage spills by water companies in England last year, accounting for 40% of the total number recorded. In reality, private water companies are simply allowed to get away with it because of a combination of a lack of ambition and the deliberate defunding of the Environment Agency, as the Conservatives have done with other public bodies.
In August last year, the Government published their storm overflows discharge reduction plan, which requires water companies to reduce discharges into designated bathing water and high-priority nature sites. Yet there is one glaring omission. Where is the plan to eliminate sewage dumping into our natural environment, and why should our constituents have to reach further into their pockets to cover rising bills when the rule-breaking bosses should pay the price?
Last year, the River Mersey, which runs through my constituency, had waste dumped in it almost 1,000 times, triggering an inquiry from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. It was reported only last week that plans to plant a new woodland in Stockport borough were cancelled after it was discovered that a field was so saturated with sewage that the soil could be too toxic for the trees. In March, the Industry and Regulatory Committee’s report on the water industry found that
“Ofwat and the Environment Agency must go further to hold water companies to account for pollution.”
It further stated that the Government must ensure that “adequate funding” is available. But that, again, is part of the problem. According to analysis by the Prospect trade union, the Government’s grant for environmental protection is currently 56% lower in real terms than in 2009-10.
Without enforcement, water companies are allowed to self-report breaches of permits that allow them to release raw sewage in exceptional circumstances via storm overflows, but evidence suggests that water firms are responsible for 10 times more sewage-dumping than they disclose. We have seen consistent rule-breaking, increased risk to public health, our leisure sites polluted and the undermining of Ofwat and the Environment Agency. The Labour party has a plan to tackle that head-on—why do the Government not have a plan?
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I support ambitious targets for reducing sewage discharges; I support stronger regulation of the water companies; I support stricter enforcement and penalties for water companies found guilty of discharging sewage into our waterways. That is why I support the Government’s very clear and practical plan, which sets us on a course to achieve all those aims.
This issue matters to me and to my constituents in coastal Pembrokeshire. During the course of 2021, my constituency had 79,000 hours of sewage discharged. That is completely unacceptable, and local people in Pembrokeshire feel angry about it. Who is responsible for water policy in Wales and for reducing sewage discharge through legislation and regulation? As we have heard, it is the Welsh Government, through Natural Resources Wales.
It is dismaying that this important issue, which should be tackled on a pragmatic cross-party basis, has been reduced again to a political football. We know that it is a political football because Labour has been briefing the media. I read in the newspaper this morning that it is part of a plan for Labour’s local election strategy. It has nothing to do with tackling the environmental problems in our constituencies; it is a clever wheeze—or, at least, Labour thinks it is clever—to get a few more votes at the local elections.
That does a huge disservice to the campaigners in our constituencies who have taken the time to write and talk to us about these issues over recent years—and not just in recent years. Surfers Against Sewage has had a presence in my constituency for 30 years and has been talking about this for decades. It is a healthy thing that this matter is now right at the top of the political agenda. It is thanks to the hard work of a lot of grassroots campaigners that we have got to this point.
I will not go into too much more detail about the situation in Wales, but suffice it to say that when we had a debate about this matter last year, the Welsh Government—who are normally very keen for everyone to be aware of the issues and policy areas that they are responsible for—kept their heads way down. They did not want people in Wales to know that they have legislative responsibility for water policy in Wales.
I wrote to the Minister to ask the Welsh Government what the plan is. We know what the UK Government’s plan is for England, but where is the plan for Wales? I got a letter back saying that:
“Replacing all the existing CSOs would be a long-term multi billion pound project, be very carbon intensive and take many years. Instead, the Welsh Government is looking at nature solutions.”
It also said that they do not feel it necessary to
“replicate the approach being taken in England.”
Yet the motion before us suggests that that is Labour policy. It should not be. We need a better approach.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
The water industry is a classic illustration of the harms of privatisation and the contradiction of a Government who claim that privatisation is more efficient while giving companies free rein to profit by damaging the environment.
In 2021, Severn Trent Water—the water company in my constituency—was fined £1 million for a 2018 raw sewage discharge that lasted for hours, and £500,000 for a separate incident. In the previous year, the firm had been fined £800,000 for similar issues. By 2020 and 2021, Severn Trent Water had discharged untreated sewage into our waterways and seas 60,000 times, with an average duration of almost 10 hours per incident. Despite that, the company boasted that it had received the Government’s highest four-star rating. Incredibly, Severn Trent’s chief executive is now advising the Government on water, waste discharges and biodiversity.
At the same time as it pollutes, Severn Trent is paying out huge dividends to shareholders, including a recent payout of 43p per share on more than 254 million shares—more than £109 million to wealthy investors. It pays out dividends twice a year. Severn Trent Water was only the third worst offender in England among water companies. According to the most recent DEFRA data, there were more than 370,000 sewage discharges a year, but fines are rarely imposed. The foxes are running the chicken coop. The Government described Severn Trent’s actions as “completely unacceptable”, but they reward it for its recklessness.
It is evident from those figures that the privatisation of the UK’s water supply is a disaster for our people, who pay a heavy price financially and in quality of life, and for nature and our environment. It is a disaster for everyone, in fact, apart from the water companies and their investors, who make millions while they pollute. It is clear that the only real solution to this situation is full renationalisation so that those who are running services are accountable and any surpluses can drive reinvestment and lower bills, instead of fattening corporate profits and offshore bank accounts.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The Opposition have attempted to pretend that the Government do not care about sewage, or about water companies being held to account, and yet in every instance, in every debate, and with every measure that we have introduced, we have shown that we care about the quality of water in our rivers and on our coastline, that we care about bathing-water status and, above all, that we care about holding water companies to account. This is not a moment to say, “Job done. Well done. Move on to the next issue.” It is a continuing, rolling issue that we have to address to provide reassurance to constituents and ensure that they have a reassured view of water companies.
All the measures that we have introduced to date have put in place exactly what the Opposition propose in the Bill they want to introduce. They talk about dividend payments—those are already restricted by Ofwat’s new measures. They talk about a new regulator—a costly thing to try to change—yet we have given Ofwat the teeth to take action against water companies that fail to deliver. We have implemented the ability to impose criminal fines and to put directors and CEOs in jail if they do not deliver. We have also offered the opportunity to impose unlimited fines on water companies under the “polluter pays” principle. The Opposition say that we take no action, yet we have proven legislative delivery that is already having an impact and being implemented across our constituencies. The £56 billion investment that we have asked for requires the water companies to take action, rather than putting the costs on our constituents at a difficult time. That is a balanced approach that will enable us to deliver and clean up our waterways, ensuring better biodiversity and even more areas with bathing-water status.
It is extremely easy for the Opposition to pat themselves on the back about 2009 and 2010, when there were limited monitoring systems across the United Kingdom. Now there is 90% monitoring—set to be 100% by the end of the year—and we can point to the problem and to the solutions, and show that we are delivering them. That is exactly what the Government are doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) said that this is a Tory solution to the sewage problem, and we should be proud of that.
I have taken South West Water to task, and I will continue to do so. It has a lot more to do to regain the confidence of the British public, especially in the south-west. I have taken its officials to do town halls in Brixham. This Thursday, I will take them to Totnes—I will let the House know how I get on—to talk about what is being done in the local area, to try to rebuild confidence, to show that work has been done. I have to say, however, that when we politicise this issue we do so to our detriment, because there is a proud record to show.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
We have the shameful situation where not one English river is classed as being in a healthy condition, none of them meets good chemical standards, and few meet good ecological standards. Many colleagues represent constituencies that have been impacted more seriously by the mismanagement of our waterways, but still, in Luton South, there were 12 spills totalling nine hours last year.
In Luton, we are particularly proud to have the River Lea, a chalk stream which rises in the neighbouring constituency of Luton North and flows all the way through Luton South, ultimately to the River Thames. Chalk streams provide pure, clear, constant water from underground chalk aquifers and springs. Eighty-five per cent. of the world’s chalk streams are in England, and they are one of the planet’s rarest habitats. They are vulnerable to drought, as we heard, as illustrated by the 2019 drought, which dried out 67% of chalk streams in the Chilterns. We therefore need the Government to commit to protecting the future of chalk streams.
Sadly, the Conservatives’ record on water quality more widely is one of polluted waters and open spaces. Since 2016, 1,276 years’-worth of raw sewage has been dumped in British waters. In 2022 alone, there were 824 sewage dumps a day across the country. Despite representing a landlocked constituency many miles from the sea, I know how important our coast is to many in our Luton community. Not everyone has the means to holiday abroad, and for many families a trip to the seaside is the highlight of their summer. Every child deserves to be able to enjoy playing on the beach, paddling in the sea, safe from harm, so the Government cannot shirk responsibility for this failure.
During the passage of the Environment Act 2021, Conservative MPs had the opportunity to support a Labour-backed amendment that would have brought an end to sewage dumping. However, instead of putting the country and our communities first, Conservative MPs walked through the Lobby to block those changes and voted to continue the Tory sewage scandal. That is despite the consequences for our environment, for public health and for businesses that rely on the beauty and nature of Britain to attract visitors and thrive.
Not only have the Conservatives given the green light to water companies to dump sewage and neglect our vital water infrastructure, but they have rewarded them for it. Shareholders are walking away with billions in dividends, with bumper bonuses for negligent water bosses. Thirteen years of Tory Government have taken our country backwards, allowing it to be treated like an open sewer. I urge all Members to support Labour’s water quality Bill, particularly those who say that it is already happening. They should back the Bill, as we need four extra reduction measures, with no extra burden on household bills, but I fear that yet again we will see Tory Members walk through the Lobby to block these changes and continue the Tory sewage scandal.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I stand with the people of beautiful Hastings and Rye, who are all quite rightly angry about the extent of water companies’ excessive use of overflows. Only the Conservatives have come up with a proper, fully costed plan, and I am proud of and support the work that the Government are doing to deal with this issue, as well as the work that I do engaging with Southern Water and my constituents, to improve water quality and resources locally and to reduce sewage flooding.
I am somewhat bemused that the Opposition have tabled the motion for debate. They are far behind the narrative in trying to secure targets for sewage discharges and protect water quality. I want to express my deep disappointment in Labour and its leadership. I thought the days of Momentum and its dirty, dangerous and polarising politics had disappeared with the election of a leader who, from the outset, seemed to be someone with a plan, with integrity. However, recent weeks in particular have shown that Corbynism and Momentum politics have not disappeared. We have seen personal, misinformed attacks on the Prime Minister. We have seen personal, misinformed attacks on many Conservative MPs about sewage discharges, to the extent that many colleagues live in fear for themselves and their families. I thought that we were all trying to work together to bring the political debate back to more polite, constructive and sensible discourse, to help to reduce the horrendous abuse with which many MPs struggle on a daily basis. I was wrong.
Only this morning, I read an article in The Guardian that began:
“Labour to use tactic that finished off Truss to force Tories into sewage vote”.
That message was spread on social media by Opposition supporters, including a former popstar who has new-found fame attacking Conservative MPs about a subject they all seem to know little about.
This is all about politicking for Labour. Its tactics smack of desperation. It does not care about sewage issues, because if it did, Wales under the Labour-controlled Senedd would have a world-class water and sewerage system. It does not. Labour has been responsible in Wales for 23 years, and Wales has almost twice the amount of sewage discharges that England does.
This Conservative Government are the first UK Government to instruct water companies to prioritise the environment, both by imposing new legal duties on water companies under our landmark Environment Act 2021, and by giving new powers to Ofwat. This is the Government who will sort out water companies, and I stand by the measures that they take.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Raw sewage is the perfect metaphor for 13 years of Tory Britain. It is hard to find an NHS dentist or get a GP appointment, and it is hard to get a passport or find a lettuce or a tomato in a supermarket, but we can go for a swim among human waste, faeces, nappies and used condoms in our lakes, rivers and seas. Britain deserves so much better than this.
There were more than 37,000 sewage spills in the south-west last year. In Plymouth alone, there were more than 2,000, an average of five spills every single day—that means that it is only 1,220 sewage spills until Christmas for us Janners—so why has South West Water been let off the hook? It is failing as a company to close down the raw sewage outlets that we need it to close in order to have a protected and safe region. In Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, there have been 8,750 hours of dumping from 1,574 spills. In Plymouth, Moor View, there have been 4,000 hours from 540 spills, with more in South West Devon and in Torridge and West Devon, whose rivers flow past Plymouth. It is not good enough.
Clean water matters to me—it mattered to me when I spoke from the Front Bench, and it matters to me when I speak now. In 2017, I proposed that Plymouth sound be designated as the UK’s first ever national marine park. In 2019, we achieved that status, and thanks to £10 million of heritage lottery money, we are improving access to the water, celebrating Plymouth’s maritime history and cleaning up our waters. For the past year, I have been campaigning for Devil’s Point and Firestone bay to be designated as an official bathing water, with regular water testing so that people like me who swim in that part of Plymouth sound can see what we are swimming in. I am grateful to Ministers for agreeing to the campaign; that status starts in only a few weeks’ time.
The truth is that ending the sewage scandal is in the Government’s hands. They can mandate investment in closing raw sewage outlets in water company business plans. They can introduce automatic fines for sewage dumping. They can introduce mandatory monitoring for all sewage outlets and make sure each one of those monitors is working. They can introduce legally binding targets to end 90% of raw sewage discharges by 2030, and they can prioritise rivers and sewage in the next set of business plans. But they could do more: they could introduce more stormwater retention tanks, automatic fines and real-time data so that we can see what is happening, and they could close the gap between a spill and a fine that currently takes many years to deliver. I would also like to see more of the money from fines go to improve our environment. Higher-level fines nearly all go to the Treasury: we need more going to our environment to improve it along the way.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I think we can all agree that sewage flooding is revolting. Few people know this better than my constituents in Thorpe, who have already experienced it twice this year in their gardens and homes, yet what Labour and the Lib Dems fail to mention is that if we were to simply click our fingers and ban sewage overflows into rivers, the result would be many more households experiencing sewage flooding as it backed up into their homes at times of flooding or heavy rainfall.
No one wants sewage overflowing into our rivers, either, and it is clear that there has been a lack of investment in sewage infrastructure over decades, which has led to this situation. However, rather than knee-jerk reactions and uncosted plans aimed at political campaigning and PR, we believe in working towards long-term solutions to protect our rivers. That is why we passed the Environment Act 2021, which introduced new targets and measures to require water companies to take action. It is why we are legislating to enshrine those targets in law, ensuring that they are deliverable and cost-effective for bill payers.
That belief is why I work closely with Thames Water and the Environment Agency to address flooding and water quality issues in Runnymede and Weybridge. It is why I press for infrastructure investment to prioritise high-use areas such as mine, so that we can deliver improvements for the maximum number of people as soon as possible. It is why I visited local sewage treatment works and pressed for modernisation that would reduce local sewage overflows, and it is why I support the £500 million—of which £250 million is coming from the Government and £250 million is coming from Surrey County Council—going towards the River Thames scheme, which will protect thousands of homes and businesses locally from flooding. It is why I will continue to campaign for practical, affordable solutions based on the needs and experiences of residents in Runnymede and Weybridge.
Opposition proposals during the passage of the Environment Act would have cost between £150 billion and £600 billion, and even then, achieving the improvements that were being promised might have proven impossible. Do Opposition Members really believe that headlines today are worth thousands of pounds in household bills each year? Do they really want to stop overflows and instead flood people’s homes, or will they finally put sound financial planning, sustainability and affordability above spin, and support our plans to improve water quality without the awful consequences for residents that their plans would cause?
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
According to the Rivers Trust, in Salford alone, our waterways have been littered with thousands of hours-worth of sewage discharges in 2022, and it will take more than the Government’s fluffy and toothless targets to fix the problem. The water industry has been regulated ever since it was privatised in 1989, and fining many water companies millions of pounds has demonstrably not affected their behaviour. Certain water companies have actually tried to claim in court that they are not public authorities and should not have to publish data on sewage, and years of chronic underfunding of the Environment Agency and inaction by the regulator, Ofwat, have meant that there has been an inability to enforce even the minimal regulation that is available to us in this country.
It is left to individuals and organisations to try to enforce those regulations, but even when they do, they are met with hurdles. Indeed, United Utilities sought a declaration that would effectively bar people from bringing private claims against water companies that dump sewage into rivers and seas, and it won its case in the Court of Appeal most recently. That has meant that any water company can effectively dump sewage into waterways in England and Wales without fear of being sued in the civil courts by landowners, angling clubs, swimming clubs, wildlife groups, residents, or any other group with an interest in the land. As such, action is needed, and the plan described by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) is sensible and effective. I hope the whole House will support his motion today.
Beyond that, I urge all colleagues to examine the bigger picture as to why we are in the situation we are in today, and how we can ensure long-term sustainability of the water sector. Privatisation has meant that water bills have increased by 40% in real terms. We have seen £72 billion paid out in dividends to shareholders since privatisation, almost half as much as the money the sector has spent on upgrading and maintaining water and sewerage systems. The galling fact is that the private sector paid very little for the companies when it took them on in 1989, and the truth is that privatisation of our water industry was wrong—it has been a complete failure for the British public. If we are serious about tackling this ecological disaster, we need to support the Opposition’s motion today, but ultimately, we need to have a serious discussion about bringing our water industry into public ownership for the public good.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I have previously spoken in this House about my beautiful constituency of South West Hertfordshire. We have the River Chess, the Aquadrome and the Grand Union canal, and we are very fortunate to have those beautiful waterways in our constituency.
Many constituents have contacted me about this particular issue. Politics being politics, the Opposition have used it as a bit of a political football: Members on the Government Benches will remember the Duke of Wellington’s amendment, and how we were pilloried for doing what we thought was best by not agreeing to bankrupt water companies up and down the country, but instead supporting a viable plan. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to make sure that any laws we create are enforceable and implementable. More locally in South West Hertfordshire, I have held regular meetings with Thames Water, which the Government have fined extensively for its discharge of sewage—over £35 million between 2010 and 2023. I continue to make visits to both Maple Lodge sewage treatment works and the one in Aylesbury, which feeds into my constituency.
My residents are rightly angry: they look at this issue and the headlines at a glance, and it is easy to understand why. The Victorian drainage system, as many colleagues have mentioned, is one of the key issues that we need to sort out, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said earlier, the reason we allow discharge in the first place is to prevent discharge from coming up through people’s toilets and into their homes, because that is even worse, unfortunately, than the damage caused by discharge into our rivers. We need to upgrade the waterways, and we will do so. We have a viable water plan put forward by this Government, which I continue to fully support, because the alternative proposed by Labour at the time was a £21,000 bill per household.
The second debate today will be on the cost of living. When the Secretary of State was in her place, she referred to the hypocrisy—or the irony—of the fact that on the one hand we are talking about increasing household bills and then later today we will be discussing how to support our local residents. We must continue to be honest with our constituents. Unfortunately, we sometimes need to be bearers of bad news, but we also have to be transparent. In my eyes, we should be saying, “These are the things that realistically we can implement.” The water plan put forward by the Government is very much that. The Opposition have spoken about increasing numbers of sewage releases, but a lot of that is down to increased and better recording. We should not shy away from the fact that we have better data.
I will finish there, because I am conscious of time. Thank you for allowing me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will continue to support my residents on this important issue.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The River Mersey in the great north-west of England meanders through the heart of the region and connects the great cities of Manchester and Liverpool. For centuries, it was the boundary between the historic counties of Lancashire and Cheshire. I pay tribute to the likes of the Mersey Rivers Trust, which has done so much for so long in the fight to clean up the Mersey. In our part of the world, we take our obligations to look after the Mersey extremely seriously. Recently, our Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram announced plans to make the river sewage-free by 2030. Those plans were backed by Lord Heseltine, who helped first establish the Mersey basin campaign partnership nearly 40 years ago. They both recognised that when it comes to the Mersey, there is no room for complacency.
Growing up in Liverpool, my generation and the one before it saw the toll taken on the river and its estuary, yet the bold action set out by our Metro Mayor risks being undermined by those on the Government Benches if they do not urgently get a grip of the issue of sewage being dumped time and time again into our waterways. The excellent reporting by Danny Rigg at the Liverpool Echo has stated the scale of the problem. Sewage flowed into Merseyside rivers for more than 17,000 hours from 10 wastewater treatment sites in 2020, and raw sewage flowed into the river for 11,000 hours from just five Wirral locations upstream of New Brighton in 2021. It was remarked on by the reporter that that was more than the number of hours in the entire year.
This modern Conservative party might not value our natural habitats, our precious waterways and our coastal communities, but the British people do. After all, it was this Conservative party that went out of its way to block Labour amendments to the Environment Act 2021 that would have bought an end to this practice. Rather than stand by communities, the Conservatives stood idly by, letting shareholders walk away with billions in dividends and allowing bumper bonuses for water bosses. Those on the Government Benches were belligerent in striking down the Opposition amendments, yet here we are. The Secretary of State is late to the party, no doubt after her inbox and those of other Government Members filled up with emails from angry constituents wondering why they have consistently refused to stand up for them. It is too little, too late. I am proud that cleaning up our waterways, our rivers and our seas, taking on the water companies for their negligence and supporting our people are priorities for this Opposition. We will take action on these things in government.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I am perplexed as to why we need another Bill on this topic, particularly when it is uncosted and would result in a threefold increase in water bills and when we already have the epic Environment Act 2021. What we really need to do is implement what is in that Act. While I fully accept that far more needs to be done, particularly on what is running into our rivers, we also need to acknowledge where progress has been made, especially when our vital tourism economy is so reliant on the quality of our water.
South West Water is responsible for 34% of all our bathing waters and for 10 million visitors to that region. We have 100% of those bathing waters now at bathing water quality, up from 90% in 2010. In my beautiful North Devon constituency, I have nine designated bathing waters, all of which are good or excellent. We have already seen a 50% reduction in bathing season storm overflows and a 75% reduction in the duration of spills. The investment by South West Water in the fantastic surf beach of Croyde has now seen its bathing quality rise from good to excellent. Anyone familiar with North Devon’s beautiful beaches knows how much better water quality is compared with 20 to 30 years ago.
Only 1% of the water pollution we are dealing with is sewage. More than 95% of our storm overflow discharge is rainwater. Anyone watching South West Water’s new WaterFit Live app will note that the overflows run after extensive rain, which is completely different from raw sewage being dumped on the beaches, particularly when the alternative is that it gets washed up into people’s front rooms. It is only because we are now monitoring the situation that we know what is going on.
The crystal clear waters of North Devon are beckoning. We have the first cold-water surf reserve in the world and the first UNESCO biosphere reserve. We pride ourselves on our waters. Indeed, people should come wild swimming in my patch. They will see dolphins playing, and they might see mermaid purses on the beach. The sharks do go past—it is pretty wild out there. We have jellyfish, including ones the size of dustbin lids. With the changing climate, we occasionally get ones that sting these days. We have seals that like to play with the gig rowers. Because of the oars flapping in the water, they jump up to see people. It was a bit hairier than my normal surf companion when I caught one out on the beach.
I will be back in my waters this weekend, and I will be proud to be so. I hope that if people have not yet booked their summer holiday, they will consider coming to Croyde. On Friday, the Opposition spoke about the need to ensure that people can access our beaches. I was proud to be at the opening of the country’s first adaptive surf centre, and now everyone can access that beach, with its excellent water company.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Before I start, I thank the Angling Trust, Surfers Against Sewage—I pay tribute to its work in coastal areas and inland—and many other groups that campaign on this important issue. I take this opportunity to talk about an unpleasant incident that happened in my constituency and neighbouring parts of Berkshire, which unfortunately illustrates the scale of the problem, the nature of what we are dealing with and, indeed, the need for urgent action—far more than has so far been committed to by the Government.
Earlier this month, there was a spill that lasted for 17 hours into a local brook called Foundry brook, sometimes known as Foudry brook, which feeds into the River Kennet, one of the main tributaries of the Thames. Ultimately, this sewage spill would have fed into the Thames at Reading and then gone onward to London. The spill happened in a beautiful rural setting of rolling countryside just outside Reading. It then passed the western edge of the town, went past the nature reserve, went through areas where people live nearby, with the backs of their gardens going down to the river, and went next to workplaces and right next to Green Park, which is a major science park in our area with thousands of employees who like to walk past the waterways. The spill carried on into the Kennet, went past County lock and into Reading town centre, through the area of the Oracle shopping centre and on past more terraced housing and more flats to Kennetmouth, where the Kennet joins the Thames. Ultimately, this dreadful slick would have continued through the rest of the Thames valley and into the sea. That is an appalling abuse that residents and people working nearby should not have to put up with. It is simply not acceptable that this type of pollution takes places in the 21st century.
I was near to Foundry brook a few weeks ago—it may have been at the time of the incident or slightly before—when I was getting ready to run the Reading half marathon. I could see and smell the water, and it really was unpleasant—that is the polite way to put it. It was deeply unpleasant. There was an awful smell and a strange tinge to the water. It did not look natural or right, despite the setting with beautiful willow trees, pollarded like something out of “The Wind in the Willows”, next to the waterway. We are talking about disgusting pollution, and there should be urgent action to tackle it. That is just one example in one community.
I thought the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) spoke beautifully about her coastal community. Inland, we also have wonderful and beautiful waterways that are full of wildlife, with large birds such as swans, smaller ones such as ducks, large fish such as pike, and a range of other fish and animals. All of this is being affected, as is people’s enjoyment, by these terrible sewage incidents. They simply should not be happening. This is happening around the country—a range of constituencies have been referenced to this afternoon—and it simply should not be continuing. I do think there is a need for urgent action now. There needs to be a proper plan, with automatic fines.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I serve on the Welsh Affairs Committee, and we have had two evidence sessions discussing the situation with water companies in Wales. I have therefore spent a great deal of time recently hearing about what is going on in Wales and, frankly, this afternoon there seems to be virtually no recognition from the Opposition that the Labour party has a big problem to answer for in Wales when it comes to water quality. We have established during this debate that the Welsh Government have legislative competence for all aspects of water quality, water resources and the water industry, so it is very much the Labour party’s responsibility in Wales.
I thought the speech by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) was powerful, and it held to account the problems with Dŵr Cymru or Welsh Water. Opposition Members have continually made the point about nationalisation—it goes down slightly different lines depending on whether they are Momentum or mainstream Labour Members. In effect, Dŵr Cymru is a not-for-profit organisation, so it is not putting money into the hands of shareholders, yet as the hon. Member said, it is a very poor performer. I think that is something the Opposition need to consider.
During the Welsh Affairs Committee review of the water industry in Wales, we were very concerned by the evidence we heard about the condition of Welsh rivers and coastal waters. I make no apology for highlighting Labour’s appalling performance in Wales on the water industry, and I will give one or two statistics in the time available. There were 83,000 spills in Wales in 2022. In England, there were 23 spills per overflow on average that year, whereas in Wales there were 38 spills per overflow on average, so the performance in Wales is distinctly poorer. The number of sewage spills in Wales accounted for 21% of all discharges across Wales and England, and the top two longest sewage discharges last year were in Wales—in Bridgend, which is the responsibility of Dŵr Cymru or Welsh Water. As we have heard, of the top five constituencies across the UK for hours of sewage discharge, three are in Wales: Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, and Preseli Pembrokeshire.
These are damning statistics, and the point I make to the Opposition is that they should be honest enough to recognise that there is a major problem in the way that Labour runs the water industry in Wales.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It will come as no surprise to Members in the Chamber that I rise to support the Labour Front-Bench motion, because I support the Bill tabled by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon).
The River Tame, which runs through my constituency, has the unfortunate honour of being one of the most polluted waterways in the UK. In detailed, peer-reviewed research, Professor Jamie Woodward and his team from the University of Manchester found that the Tame, which is one of two tributaries forming the River Mersey at Stockport, is heavily contaminated with microplastics, because untreated waste water and sewage are routinely discharged into the river when it is at low flow. Professor Woodward found concentrations of 130,000 microplastic particles per sediment on the riverbed around Denton. This is one of the few accessible green spaces in my constituency, and it is absolutely disgraceful.
In 2022, there were 11,000 hours of sewage discharge into the River Tame and the local environment by United Utilities. That pollution, and also the pollution from industrial processes along the river, is having a disastrous impact on the local environment. In a recent interview with Paul Whitehouse on the BBC, Chris Clarke, an angler who works closely with the Friends of the Tame Valley, told of his devastation as he watched raw sewage—not from a UU plant, but from a misconnection into Johnson brook—being pumped into the waterway on the same day that the Environment Agency was replenishing fish stocks.
Local people across my constituency are doing their very best to solve this problem. Groups such as the Friends of the Tame Valley, which I am incredibly proud to be a part of, often organise community riverbank cleans, but all too often it feels as though they are fighting an uphill battle. There has also been the formation of the River Tame working group. Spearheaded by the Mersey Rivers Trust, this brings together various community and corporate stakeholders, including United Utilities, to resolve the local operational issues and to help shape local catchment actions plans. In the interest of balance, I should say that UU is investing £100 million to immediately commence a further programme of works to reduce spill frequency at eight prioritised storm overflows, there are four river rangers and we are training a generation of river guardians.
In closing, in 2010 the Tory Prime Minister said that we are “all in it together”. I am sure he did not think that, 13 years later, that would mean the sewage in our rivers.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in this debate to make it clear again that the use of storm overflows is unacceptable and needs to end. That is why I supported the Environment Act and new powers to require water companies to tackle this issue and for Ofwat to act, including where water companies seek to pay dividends when their environmental performance is not good enough.
North West Norfolk is home to many precious chalk streams, and one of my first visits as an MP was to walk the River Nar in Castle Acre with the Norfolk Rivers Trust, when we looked at work to restore part of the river to get it back to the natural widths, depths and gradients. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on chalk streams, I have consistently highlighted the unacceptable use of storm overflows and the need to protect these rivers.
However, let us be candid about what ending the use of overflows, as some pretend is possible, would mean. It would mean sewage backing up into people’s homes. Why do Labour and the Liberal Democrats not put that on their leaflets? Why are they not open with the public about the disgusting consequences of the proposals they have put forward? Rather than misleading claims, I am interested in practical action to make a difference, and that starts with overflows.
Looking at the motion, I wonder where Labour has been. We will have 100% of overflows monitored by the end of this year, and real-time data is coming. When Labour was last in government, the figure was 7%. Then there are fines and prosecutions. Having looked at this area as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I want to see the Environment Agency take far more robust action. All major water companies are under investigation for illegal sewage discharges, and regulators must use higher fines to focus the minds of chief executives and boards, which is why I support unlimited fines.
The third element is investment. There is no cheap way to fix a Victorian system combining rainwater and wastewater. In my constituency, residents suffered sewage coming up through manhole covers and into their homes when there was severe flooding. By challenging Anglian Water, I got it to reline some of the sewer network because there was groundwater infiltration, rather than just inundation of rainwater. As a result, we will see improvements and hopefully we will not see a repetition. But we need major investment, which is why the £56 billion is going to be required.
The motion calls for an impact assessment. That has been done as required by the Environment Act 2021 and the results are not good for either party. Liberal Democrats pretend that they can solve this problem overnight, but that is just wholly impractical, and the Labour plan appears to involve spending £600 billion in seven years. As my constituents would say, “What a load of squit”. Instead, the Conservative party has a plan for 100% more monitoring, requiring record investment and using penalties to tackle this problem. Now water companies and regulators must be held to account to deliver real improvements for our constituents.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild). Let me start with some facts. In 2021, we saw a 67% increase in sewage discharges in my constituency across the River Leam and the River Avon. Of course these are discharges that are sanctioned by this Government. We have heard that there are now discharges every two and a half minutes. Let us also remember that the Conservative Government voted against the Duke of Wellington’s amendment 45 to the Environment Bill, which would have put a new duty on sewerage undertakers to improve the sewerage systems and to demonstrate progressive reductions in the harm caused by discharges of untreated sewage.
A year on, nothing has changed. The public are extremely disgusted by what they see and hear. In 2022, we had 824 sewage dumps a day across the country. Meanwhile, billions are being paid out in dividends, as we have heard, and the Severn Trent Water CEO’s pay is increasing by 25% to 27% locally. Not enough is being invested in the network, in sustainable drainage systems, or in greywater storage. One of the great hits to the situation was the change in the legislation on new builds and new housing—we have problems with rainwater runoff and the storage on those new developments has not been improved.
I am seeing and hearing real concerns from the community. I have had 52 letters from the public just in recent months. Concerns have been expressed by leisure users such as Warwick Sea Scouts, the Royal Leamington Spa Canoe Club and Warwick Boat Club, which has rowing teams using the lengths of the rivers. I have also heard from businesses, such as Warwick Boats and Leam Boat Centre, which I contacted and which told me they are really concerned about damage to the river’s ecosystem and about public health. Of course, this has an impact on those businesses.
Let us not forget that this also impacts on wildlife. There is a desperate need to take remedial action and focus on river ecologies to protect and preserve plant and animal life. That is why Labour’s plan would impose automatic fines, set legal requirements for monitoring stations throughout our rivers and set legally binding targets. After 13 years, it is clear that the Government have failed our rivers, our canals and our beaches. The Government are out of touch with public opinion. That is why the motion is important and why I will be voting for it.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Another pointless debate from a pointless Opposition—that’s what I am thinking today. The last time they did this, obviously, they were telling people that we were voting to dump sewage into our waterways. That was absolute nonsense. As a result of that, we had malicious communications and threats. We had some real nastiness. The party of “kinder, gentler politics” should take note, but it won’t. But listen—why would anybody vote to dump sewage in waterways? It is absolute nonsense. No one has ever done that. My friends, my family—we all use our waterways. We use our seas, beaches and rivers. It is just not true. It is a complete lie and Opposition Members should hang their heads in shame.
It is important that we put the facts out, rather than score cheap political points. I am not into this divisive dog-whistle politics. It is absolute nonsense—[Laughter.] Even they are laughing. What are storm overflows? They are a relief valve, so that when we have a heavy downpour of rain, sewage does not back up and go on to the streets or back into people’s houses—[Interruption.] Labour Members keep saying “13 years”, but the Labour party was in power for 13 years. They keep talking about the levers they are going to pull—they did absolutely nothing for 13 years. They should be ashamed—a bunch of hypocrites, the lot of them.
Water companies sometimes have to use those overflows. It is not ideal and not always acceptable. The Environment Act, which we introduced, changes that and we are acting on it. We are doing more than the Labour party ever did in its 13 years. Like all its silly ideas, the Labour party no real plan. It is just dog-whistle politics, as I said before.
In this great city, the Thames tideway tunnel is currently under construction. [Interruption.] I came to my senses. Somebody is chuntering from a sedentary position to say that I was once a member of the Labour party. I was, but I woke up, my senses came back and then I was elected as a Conservative MP and that shut up the lot of them. The Thames tideway tunnel will cost £5 billion and take 10 years to complete, but if that lot had their way, we would have seen sewage backing into streets and people’s houses for 10 years. The great British public are not stupid. They get it. Just like our ageing Victorian sewers, that lot are full of it.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I would like to tell a tale of two announcements. We are used to reannouncements, where the Government use much fanfare to introduce funding that, it later emerges, they have announced before. But I want to describe something that is new to me: an announcement with two faces.
On 7 April, the Sidmouth Herald quoted a Government press release:
“This week, the water Minister”—
the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow)—
“confirmed £70 million of cash will be used to improve sewage systems in Sidmouth, Tipton St John and Axminster, as well as Falmouth in Cornwall. East Devon’s share of the cash...will help prevent sewage overflows in Sidmouth and Tipton St John, as well as water pollution in Axminster.”
On the surface, that is welcome: £70 million to improve sewage systems in east Devon. Those reading that in the paper in Devon are led to believe that that relates to our area, and might miss the passing reference to a distant town in Cornwall, but readers in my part of Devon are discerning and they notice a mention of Cornwall in a story that is supposed to be about Devon.
To get a full picture of what is going on here, one needs to travel 125 miles south-east of Axminster and read the same announcement in Falmouth’s local newspaper, The Packet. What does the Conservative Government’s announcement claim in Falmouth?
“South West Water’s total investment for the Falmouth area includes...a total of £40 million.”
By reading about the same announcement in the neighbouring county, we find that most of the £70 million funding is not for east Devon at all.
I, for one, will never defer to the interests of polluting water firms or simply parrot the lines they suggest we MPs might like to use. Instead, I will always stand up for my constituents, who are seeing their bills rise and profits leaking out in bonuses, all while sewage poisons our rivers and beaches.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Across the country, our beaches and rivers, including the River Wey Navigation, are vital for the health and wellbeing of our communities. Like my constituents, I know how important it is to make sure our natural assets are preserved, not least because every summer I swim in our waters.
It was this Conservative Government who introduced new duties on water companies to monitor water quality upstream and downstream of storm overflows and sewage disposal works. It is this Government who are working towards increasing monitoring to 100% of storm overflows by the end of this year. It was under this Government last year that fines reached a record level, where breaches were found.
The Government alone, however, cannot fix each and every leak, and each and every unfortunate discharge event. That is why I welcome the Government incentivising water companies to invest more than £7 billion by 2025 on environmental improvements while protecting people’s water bills, and I welcome the millions of pounds being invested by Thames Water in my constituency.
This is a very complex issue that needs the keen attention of a Government who look out for our waterways and beaches, and our constituents, unlike Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who have put forward ridiculous plans that would cost up to £593 billion, or £21,000 per household. When it comes to sorting this messy situation out, it is this Conservative Government who are taking action. It is the Labour party that allowed people to pay more while the sewage flowed freely into our waterways and the water companies went unchecked.
I gently say to the Opposition that this politically motivated, politically timed debate on a highly emotive subject is not a neutral act. It overflows beyond this Chamber. I, and other Conservative colleagues, have had to have police come to our homes and offices to make sure we are safe as the result of misinformation on sewage. It has impacted our families and our staff. It is important that my Guildford constituents have the facts, not fearmongering.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Has the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) finished? Is he done? Does he want to intervene? In spite of the relentless nastiness from the nasty party on the Opposition Benches, we found out some interesting facts today. Perhaps the Opposition can explain some of them in the wind-up.
There was literally no water monitoring under Labour. Why? There must have been mass dumping, but we do not know about it. Why? Because they hid the problem by not monitoring. What gets me most of all is that the utility firms that those class warriors profess to hate had a sweetheart deal with them to allow them to self-monitor. What a corrupting relationship between new Labour and the big utility firms. Why were they allowed to self-monitor? [Interruption.] Grinning at me inanely does not answer the question. They were actually taken to court by their lovely buddies in the European Union. I could not make it up. I thank the Secretary of State for her calm and measured sentiments—I am trying to be measured but I am probably not doing a good job, I must admit—as opposed to the nonsense that we have heard from the Opposition.
Thanks to this Government, on the Isle of Wight, Southern Water is investing tens of millions. I persuaded Southern Water to make the Isle of Wight an example of best practice, through Sandown water works, £2.5 million for Knighton, £5 million for Carisbrooke and £7 million for works in Newport, Cowes and Brading. The full list is extensive. I encourage all Islanders who get the offer of a free water butt from Southern Water to take up that option. As well as improving the pumping stations and replumbing parts of the drainage system, we are providing slow-release water butts and redesigning road surfaces. The improvements that we are making as a pilot scheme and an example of best practice today on the Island will be rolled out everywhere else as part of the integrated water plan, the integrated sewage plan and all the good things that are happening under the Environment Act.
Sally-Ann Hart
My hon. Friend raises the work that Southern Water is doing on the Isle of Wight. We have a Fairlight Pathfinder project on my patch, which will be rolling out smart water butts that slow down surface water run-off. I am looking forward to seeing how that works.
Bob Seely
Community schemes are a small part of this. People write to me and ask, what can a community scheme do? Hon. Members are right that major investment has to happen, but the first pilot scheme in Britain took place in a beautiful little village called Havenstreet in my patch. On average, Havenstreet pumping station spills 30 times a year—sewage or storm discharge goes into the river 30 times a year. After two thirds of eligible residents took up Southern Water’s offer of a free water butt and free installation—no money is exchanged, and Southern Water will never ask for money—the result has been a 70% reduction in water spills. I am putting out letters to every community that can get those butts from Southern Water. I have written to almost all the relevant residents in Gurnard. Letters will go out to Fishbourne and Wootton next, then Freshwater. I encourage them, because the more people who take up the offer of a free water butt, the more successful the scheme.
By improving pumping stations, replumbing parts of the drainage system, providing slow-release butts and redesigning surfaces to make them more porous, we are changing the system for the better. Overall, thanks to the Secretary of State, the Environment Act the sewage plans and the national water plan, we have a positive plan for Britain. Labour is playing catch-up; it offers nothing but second-rate, class-war rhetoric and the politics of abuse and hate. I strongly support the Government’s amendment.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Good water quality is something that everyone in Southend West takes extremely seriously. Our 1,000-year-old cockle industry and our sea-front businesses, including Sealife Adventure, Adventure Island and Rossi’s ice cream parlour, which attract 6 million tourists to our beaches, depend on the quality of our coastal waters. That is why it is so important that we are honest and truthful about the progress that this Conservative Government have made in improving our water quality over the past decade. Frankly, the fearmongering and electioneering we have seen from the Opposition today is shameful.
These are the facts: successive Conservative Governments have increased the percentage of bathing waters classified as good or excellent from 76% in 2010 to 93% now, which is an increase of over 20%. That figure includes every single bathing water in my beautiful constituency and is significantly higher than the European average, which is only 88%.
There is now 80% less phosphorus and 85% less ammonia in our waters than in 1990, when the water companies were privatised. That is why we have an explosion of seals, porpoises and octopuses, and why wrasse is now found off Southend when once it was a rarity. Only two weeks ago, I joined the Environment Agency, Southend Against Sewage and the famous Bluetits Chill Swimmers to test the quality of the water at Chalkwell beach and, once again, found it to be excellent. Hon. Members are welcome to visit at any time.
However, I am not suggesting that we do not have a problem or that any dumping of sewage into our waterways should be condoned; of course it should not. That is why I am proud we have a Government—the first Government—who have brought in a storm overflows sewage reduction plan and will oversee an investment of £56 billion in modernisation. That is absolutely huge, and more than the entire annual budget of the Scottish Government.
That is also why I am bearing down on my water company all the time. I held a water summit in my patch and brought all the stakeholders together in order to ensure that the chief executive is well aware of the obligations placed on him by the Secretary of State of this Conservative Government. By 30 June, which is in only 10 weeks’ time, all of my constituents will know the action plan for each of the storm overflows in my constituency, the number and duration of spills, and, most critically, when improvements will be delivered and when there will outcomes from the interventions. Those are the actions my constituents want to see happening and they are the actions of a responsible, serious Government.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In Cumbria, it is our privilege to be the stewards not only of the fells and the dales, but of our lakes, rivers and coastal waterways. That is why we are angry about the fact that six out of 10 of the longest spills of sewage in this country in 2022 happened in our county of Cumbria. Sewage was pumped into the River Kent at Staveley for 169 days, into the River Eden at Kirkby Stephen for 101 days and into the River Eea at Cark for 252 days. At Windermere, the centre of the Lake district’s tourism and economy, and the largest lake in England, sewage was pumped into the lake or its tributaries for 5,000 hours.
Sewage is discharged not only in Cumbria. As I speak, sewage is being discharged into the River Mole at Esher, which happened 220 times last year. There were 280 spills in Winchester, 750 spills in Lewes, and 2,200 spills in the borough of Stockport. All of these were legal. United Utilities in the north-west is the worst offender because it is situated in the wettest part of England, and therefore storms happen and overflows are permitted more often.
Let us also look at the situation with regard to bathing water, which we have heard many people talk about today, and the way it ensures higher water quality. We bid for bathing water status for Coniston Water and the River Kent, but we were turned down, despite those being more popular bathing sites than many places where that status was granted. I have heard what Government Members have said about monitoring, but in 2021 12% of the monitoring stations were faulty and 16% were faulty last year, so what we know is probably an underestimate of the state of the problem.
We have talked about legal dumping of sewage, but what about illegal dumping? In 2021 and 2022, there were 827 offences and illegal dumps of sewage. How many of those 827 were prosecuted? Just 16, which means that this Government have effectively decriminalised the dumping of sewage in our rivers, lakes and coastal waterways. Water companies know that that will happen and factor in the fines, because it is cheaper to pay them than to invest in the infrastructure. Since privatisation, £65.9 billion has been paid out in water company dividends. There was a 20% increase in executive pay last year. We hear the Government saying that the polluter should pay. Yes, the polluters pay: they pay themselves massive bonuses.
In Cumbria and across the country, we are outraged. It is not just about the threat to the biodiversity of our lakes and rivers, to our fish stocks, to those who swim, to our pets using our waterways and to the tourism economy that underpins the Lake district. It is also about the deep injustice that large corporations are raking in enormous profits, while this Government are doing nothing to stop them pumping sewage into the waterways that we value so dearly in Cumbria and elsewhere.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I will start on a positive note by thanking those who have actively engaged in this public health, environmental and economic issue, which has been an absolute catastrophe for our country. I thank my friend Feargal Sharkey, the singer turned formidable environmental campaigner, for his tireless work in bringing to life the impact that sewage dumping is having on every part of our country. It is also important to recognise the work of the campaign group Top of the Poops, alongside Surfers Against Sewage, in collating constituency data to allow the public to see the extent of the Tory sewage scandal in the areas where they live, work and holiday.
Opposition Members have made some extremely powerful speeches illustrating the impact of the sewage scandal in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) made a good point about excessive corporate pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) spoke about the effect on the biodiversity of our birds and fish. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) pointed out that bills have gone up by 40%.
Alex Sobel
Unfortunately we have limited time, so I will make some progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) rightly highlighted the importance of the unique habitats that chalk streams provide. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) pointed out that we need increased regulation that is good for people. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and other north-west Members rightly pointed out that United Utilities has the highest number of discharges. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) pointed out that constituents have suffered heavily because of overflows in her constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who is a keen wild swimmer, has been an excellent campaigner for Plymouth sound to get clean bathing water status. I hope his campaign comes to fruition. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) pointed out that the Government have a 27-year plan. Who can wait that long for our rivers to be clean? My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) represents Whitstable beach, where I have swum. She pointed out that swimmers can no longer use it because of the sewage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) pointed out that United Utilities uses the courts to protect itself from private prosecution, which is exactly why our Bill is needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) pointed out the danger that sewage poses to the ambitious plans of our metro Mayors. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) told the House about the horrendous 17-hour spill just outside Reading. Our Bill would end such incidents. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) rightly mentioned sustainable drainage systems and grey-water storage as part of the solution. There have been so many excellent speeches today.
We have to ask ourselves some questions. Is the water industry operating in the public interest? No. Is it right for the Tories to allow water companies to dump raw sewage into our waters? No. Is it time for change? Yes. Of course, we cannot and will not just let water companies off the hook. We should not allow them to wash their hands of the issue and walk off the pitch with £72 billion in dividends, leaving behind a broken system.
Alex Sobel
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine.
Bob Seely
Earlier today, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) made a truly dire attempt at public speaking in which he avoided most of the questions put to him. One of the critical questions was why the last Labour Government allowed the utility firms to self-monitor. Does that not exemplify an uncomfortable, corrupting relationship between the last Labour Government and the public utilities?
Alex Sobel
When Labour left office in 2010, the Environment Agency said that our rivers were the cleanest at any time since before the industrial revolution. That is Labour’s record.
It should not be left to us or to the public to clean up the mess and pay the price of Tory failure, but we will have to do it. Conservative Members have made the argument that that will involve households picking up the tab. It will not. Our plan, unlike the Government’s, does not require increasing taxpayers’ bills.
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), in the absence of a credible plan, Labour has done the Secretary of State’s job for her in presenting its own oven-ready plan: to deliver the mandatory monitoring of all sewage outlets and a standing-charge penalty for all water companies that do not have properly functioning monitors in place; to deliver automatic fines on polluters, which is not happening under this Government; to give regulators the necessary power and require them to enforce the rules properly; to set legally binding sewage-dumping reduction targets that will end the Tory sewage scandal by 2030 and not 2050; and crucially, to ensure that any failure to improve is paid for by water companies, which will not be able to pass the charge on to customers’ bills or slash investment.
What we have set out in my hon. Friend’s Bill is just the first phase of Labour’s plan to clear up the mess, but we are under no illusions: the system is fundamentally broken. That is why we need a phase 2 plan—which we will set out in due course—to reform the sector, placing delivery for the public good at the heart of the water industry. There needs to be a greater degree of public oversight in the running of the water industry to protect the public interest, because under the Tories, households are paying the price of a failing water industry, through first having to pay for sewage treatment in their water bills while the Tories allow corner-cutting and the dumping of raw sewage in our waters rather than its being treated properly. I recently discovered that only 37% of our sewage treatment plants even have storage tanks, while the others discharge straight into the local rivers, and even the simplest precautions are not being taken in the majority of our sewage plants—
Alex Sobel
I think that time is against us—yes, you are indicating that it is, Madam Deputy Speaker—so unfortunately I cannot take any more interventions.
Secondly, households are paying the price of the impact that this is having on the NHS, the economy and the environment. I am disappointed but not surprised at the conduct of Tory Members who, once again, stood up one after the other and merely read out the cobbled-together lines of the panicked Government Whips—[Interruption.] That is not true! I wrote this speech myself, thank you very much. The Government Whips are struggling to find any serious reasons for blocking Labour’s common-sense approach. Being forced to resort to that is a symptom of a Tory Government who have run out of road and of ideas.
It is unfortunate, and slightly embarrassing for them, that the Government Whips have misunderstood Labour’s plan, fed Tory Members inaccurate numbers and got their maths wrong, which is no surprise given the state of our economy. The Minister may wish to correct the record on their behalf, because if they had read the Bill they would have seen that there are safeguards that prevent anyone from gaming the system. In any case, the Government’s own economic regulator, Ofwat, already has the power to protect customers’ bills.
The Secretary of State’s own Department has undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of Labour’s plan, which shows that cleaning up this mess would cost water companies a fraction of the £72 billion that they have taken out in dividends. There is no reason for inaction—and how much is that inaction costing the NHS, and businesses that are forced to pull down the shutters because of sewage dumping? But with the Tories, there is always a reason not to act in the public interest, and nothing is ever their fault. Bluster, blame game and blocking measures to clean up their mass sewage dumping mess—you name it, they have blamed it, as I have heard throughout the afternoon, whether it is people who use their toilets, the Welsh Government or home drainage systems. The Secretary of State even blamed the Victorians for causing this mess, more than 100 years ago. In case they have forgotten, let me point out that it is the Tories in Westminster who are responsible for economic regulation of the water industry in England and Wales, with the levers of power that are key to improving industry performance and holding water companies to account.
Tory Members now have a second chance to do the right thing, having previously voted to continue sewage dumping. If they vote with Labour today, we can end the sewage scandal once and for all. Their alternative is simply to follow the lead by continuing to vote for sewage dumping for no good reason. If they do refuse to back our plan, it will be either because they have not bothered to read the Bill and are blindly following the direction of the Secretary of State, or because they do not understand the Bill and, as their contributions today suggest, are inadvertently misleading the House about the reasons for continuing to vote for sewage dumping.
Let me be clear: the public are watching and listening. The choice this evening is simple. Members can either vote for our plan to end the Tory sewage scandal by 2030, with water companies finally being made to do the job that households are already paying them to do, or they can, for a second time, vote to allow the dumping of raw sewage in the constituencies that we all represent.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I now call the Minister, and remind the House that the Front Benchers can speak for equal amounts of time when winding up the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
The debate provides a welcome and much-needed opportunity to set the record straight on sewage and what the Government are doing. Not only are we taking this issue extremely seriously, but we are and have been acting. We have a realistic, costed plan to clean up our network of rivers and coasts, and it is already in operation—and what a tide of positivity we have heard from the Conservative Benches today.
There is general consensus among all our colleagues that this Government have a pragmatic, practical, costed, reliable and comprehensive plan. Those words have been used by all colleagues, and we are all pulling together to understand this issue. Those colleagues included my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for St Ives (Derek Thomas), for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Gedling (Tom Randall), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson)—plain speaking, as ever—as well as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) with her wonderful adaptive surfing centre, my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) and for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who systematically unpicked the Labour party’s plan by himself.
Following today’s debate, I cannot help but feel that for the Opposition this is nothing but a political game to fire up those outside this place with a view to making some sort of gain. Labour’s plan is completely superfluous. Where have Labour Members been? We are doing all these things they are asking for, and more. It was this Government who uncovered the scandal of storm sewage overflows being used far too frequently, because it was this party that increased the monitoring of storm sewage overflows. We have ramped it up from a paltry 7% under Labour to 91% now, and it will be 100% by the end of the year. It was also the Labour Government who were taken to court for pollution, so where the idea of all those clean rivers comes from, I do not know.
What did we discover from all our monitoring? We discovered that water companies were indeed using storm sewage overflows far too frequently, and that is completely unacceptable. So what did we do? We acted. We brought in the Environment Act 2021 to require a new storm overflow discharge reduction plan, fully costed and with a clear impact assessment, delivering up to £56 billion of capital investment to revolutionise our Victorian infrastructure. We are consulting on lifting the cap on fines entirely so that the Environment Agency can issue potentially unlimited penalties on water companies, in addition to Ofwat’s existing powers to fine companies up to 10% of annual turnover.
Ofwat has strengthened its powers on executive pay awards so that if water companies want to pay bonuses even if environmental performance is found wanting, their shareholders must pay for that, not their customers. Through the new water restoration fund, money collected through fines will be spent on improving water quality. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) needs to get with the programme: we have already done what he asked. Our Treasury friends who sit here agreed to it. We are also bringing in new monitoring requirements under the Environment Act for near real-time reporting on storm overflows. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth asked if we could do more. Yes; we are going to increase water quality monitoring upstream and downstream.
Rebecca Pow
I am not going to give way, because there simply is not time.
I note that the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) likes our monitoring ideas in the Environment Act so much that he has put our monitoring framework from the Act into clause 1 of his Bill. Marvellous! We also recently published our integrated plan for water. This includes an announcement that we are accelerating £1.6 billion of investment in reducing storm overflow discharges, upgrading wastewater treatment works and bringing in measures to improve drought resilience. The whole issue is extremely complicated, and that is why I made this a priority when I came into the Department. Our plan for water sets out how we will deliver the improvements we need across all matters connected to water, including all forms of pollution.
I ask people to remember that no Conservative Member has ever voted to allow raw sewage into our rivers. We voted for measures to clean up our rivers, and the Opposition voted against them. We have produced much cleaner water since Victorian times. We have almost the highest-quality drinking water in the world, and 93% of our bathing waters are excellent.
How could we take Labour’s suggestions on sewage seriously? Labour’s plans would potentially require enough pipes to be dug up from our roads to go around the globe two and a half times. Can anyone imagine the disruption that would cause, not to mention that it is totally impractical? We have heard no clear indication of how Labour’s plan would be paid for. Would it be added to customers’ bills? The shadow Minister could not answer that question on Sky this morning, and I did not hear the answer this afternoon. As for the Lib Dems, it is really not worth commenting on what they say.
The scale of this Government’s ambition cannot be highlighted enough, and I urge all colleagues to support the Government’s amendment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will vote first on the Government’s amendment, because the amendment simply deletes wording. Should the amendment be made, I anticipate that there will be a second vote on the main Question. That is unlike the second debate today, for which the amendment also adds substance and therefore the Question on the Opposition wording will be put first. Did you all get that? Turn your papers over and begin.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind Members that they really should follow their voices; I do not want to see a zero at the end of the vote.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A little while ago, when Peter Tatchell came to visit me, he had a badge confiscated from him—a campaigning badge against homophobia. I subsequently received a letter of apology from the Serjeant at Arms saying that he would look at that practice. Yesterday, some other people came to visit me. They had a series of leaflets about the Chinese Government’s treatment of Jimmy Lai, and those were confiscated too. There may well be a well-intentioned purpose behind this, but will the House authorities look at the operation of these rules, because it seems very odd that it is illegal to bring political material into the House of Commons.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. I will raise this issue with the Serjeant at Arms tomorrow, and I will get back in touch with him.
Cost of Living Increases
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 288 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 285 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House condemns successive Conservative Governments for their mismanagement of the economy over 13 years; regrets that this has resulted in the UK being the only G7 economy that is still smaller than before the pandemic, with squeezed wages and higher mortgage rates that have increased costs by £500 a month for some households; further regrets that successive Chancellors have made working people pay for the Government’s economic failure with 24 tax rises since 2019, creating the highest tax burden in 70 years, while refusing to abolish the non-domicile tax loophole; is extremely concerned about the impact on household budgets of an inflation rate of more than 10 per cent with food prices rising at their fastest rate in 45 years; therefore calls on the Government to ease the cost of living crisis by freezing council tax this year, paid for by an extended windfall tax on oil and gas company profits; further calls on the Government to cut business rates for small businesses and support energy intensive industries including food manufacturers with their energy bills to help bring down the cost of everyday items; and finally calls on the Government to adopt Labour’s economic mission to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 with good jobs in every part of the country.
It astonishes me that the Conservatives are acting like the cost of living crisis is over and their economic plan is working. The Chancellor is proudly boasting that Britain is back. He has even said:
“The declinists are wrong and the optimists are right. We stick to the plan because the plan is working.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 847.]
What planet does the Chancellor live on? Does he understand the reality on the ground for all of our constituents? Does he understand that on the Prime Minister’s watch, our economy is weaker, with the UK forecast to have the worst growth in the G7 this year? Real wages are lower than they were 15 years ago, with families in the UK going into the cost of living crisis significantly poorer than those in comparable European countries. The price of everyday essentials has risen by an eye-watering £3,000 since 2020, and never before have people in this country paid so much money for so little value from their public services.
The disconnect between this Conservative fantasy and the experiences of ordinary people could not be wider. Decent, hard-working people across the country are being forced to cut back on the things that underpin a good life. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will explain what I mean by a good life: a meal out once in a while with close friends, the special annual family holiday that you look forward to all year round, and a decent home to call your own. Those are increasingly things of the past; instead, people are left worrying about how they are going to pay their household bills at the end of the month and their rocketing mortgage costs.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for opening her speech in such a powerful way. Does she agree that it is really worrying that we hear tales of parents going without a meal, just to make sure that their children are able to eat?
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is a doughty champion for the children from deprived families who live in her constituency. We have surgeries where people line up to speak to us who cannot afford to eat because, as my hon. Friend says, they are saving their money to buy one meal for their children. This is Britain in 2023. We should not be in this situation.
It is important to remember how we got here in the first place. The Government have mishandled the cost of living crisis at every turn. Indeed, we will never forget the Conservatives crashing the economy last year, and we will never forgive them for it.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The hon. Lady is totally right about the perverse choices that people are having to make. A young mum in Abingdon who has her kids in childcare is having to decide whether she pays the debt that she owes to the childcare provider, pays her prescription charges, or buys food for herself and her children. How is that a country that we can be proud of? It is because the Conservatives mismanaged the economy, is it not?
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She has outlined lots of situations that we hear about every day from our constituents, yet the Conservatives say that their economic plan is working—it is clearly not working. The resulting rise in interest rates and the economic instability have added £500 a month to first-time buyers’ bills. For too many, dreams of home ownership and starting a family have been destroyed—another pillar of the good life knocked away.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the Chancellor’s suggestion that the Government are the optimists and we are the declinists. In fact, are the optimists not those people who have taken on a mortgage and achieved that dream of home ownership, and who are being so cruelly let down by the incompetence of this Government?
Tulip Siddiq
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to ask the Conservatives how they can continue to live in this fantasy world, because it does not match the reality on the ground. Let us not forget the impact of rising prices. Food prices are growing 50% faster than anywhere else in the G7, putting Britain’s food inflation rate at 19.2%, compared with an average of 12.8%. The price of sugar is up by an incredible 42%. Milk is up by more than 33%, and pasta is up by 25%. The UK has the highest inflation level in western Europe. That is a national scandal.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
The hon. Lady says that the inflation figures here are higher than anywhere else in the G7. Food price inflation in Germany is over 22%, compared with 17% in the UK. Is that also the fault of the Conservative Government?
Tulip Siddiq
I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not proud of all the figures I am outlining and the high inflation that is coming up. The Conservatives can manipulate the stats all they want, but they cannot run away from the fact that we are falling behind our peers. That is not something I am proud of, and they should not be either.
Since 2020, the cost of a typical food shop is up by £700 a year. Clothing and footwear are up by £140. Household goods and services are up by £360. Transport is up by £800. [Interruption.] I do not know why Government Members are laughing; these are real figures that our constituents are dealing with. The essentials of housing, fuel and power are up by a shocking £1,480.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady aware that the Government have subsidised people’s energy bills by about 50%, and if so, by how much would Labour subsidise them?
Tulip Siddiq
I will come to energy shortly. If the hon. Member were able to answer, I would ask him whether he thinks 50% is enough, because it is not enough. If he speaks to people on the ground, he will see how much they are struggling. The rising costs of everyday essentials mean that families across the country are making cutbacks just to stay afloat. That has been devastating for local economies, with communities losing the businesses and institutions that bind us together.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a fact that the village of Altnaharra in my constituency is every year the coldest place in the entire United Kingdom. We already have pensioners having to make the invidious decision to wrap themselves up in blankets and put the heating off. No one should face that sort of decision.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The situations being described are not what we want to hear about in our country in 2023, and we should not be proud of this record; we should be trying to do better.
Under this Government, more than 6,000 pubs, nearly 4,000 local shops and 9,000 bank branches have closed on our local high streets. That is nothing to be proud of.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I am sure we have all been concerned by stories from our constituents who are missing out on meals, eating out-of-date food or unable to clean their clothes as often as they want. Does she share my concern that that is having a devastating impact on the development of young children in the early years? We need to know that those children are fed and have heating.
Tulip Siddiq
My hon. Friend is always fighting for her constituents, and she is absolutely right. As someone who was on the shadow Education team before I came to this role, I know that if our young children are not fed or looked after properly, they will not fulfil their potential in this country. We should be looking at the future generations, and the Government are ignoring them.
The Government’s mishandling of the cost of living crisis is just another chapter in the long story of 13 years of economic failure. More than a decade of Conservative rule has seen our country fall behind as the British economy has experienced low growth, rock-bottom productivity rates and chronic under-investment.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. I find it deeply offensive that Conservative Members are laughing at some of these statistics. That just shows how out of touch they are with the reality of life for so many people across this country. Does she agree that it is an absolute travesty in 2023 that we have families where children are having to share beds, sleep on the floor or sleep in the bathtub because people cannot afford to move house, to pay their rent and to pay for food for their families? That is not a laughing matter.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Having campaigned in her constituency, I know there are huge levels of poverty in certain places. Someone from the back said that we are lucky here because we are MPs and get paid a decent salary. We certainly should not be laughing at people who are struggling to make ends meet.
I remind the House that, when Labour was in government, real GDP growth averaged 2%. If growth had continued at the same rate under this Tory Government, we would have £40 billion more to spend on our public services, without having to raise a single tax. Instead, a lack of strategic policy making, economic uncertainty and the absence of an industrial strategy mean that the UK is going through the slowest economic recovery in the G7.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The hon. Lady is asserting that the UK economy has fallen behind since 2010. Does she recognise the figures that show that this country has actually grown faster than Italy, Japan and France since 2010 to date and that, since 2016—since the Brexit vote—it has grown at about the same pace as Germany?
Tulip Siddiq
The Conservatives can manipulate the stats as much as they want, but they cannot run away from the fact that we are falling behind our peers. [Laughter.] I do not care how much Conservative Members want to laugh; I know that is the truth. It is families who are bearing the brunt of the low growth. A decade of stagnant wages has left the British people highly exposed to rising prices. If the hon. Member who just intervened can dispute this figure, he is welcome to intervene again: the average French and German family are now 10% and 19% richer than their respective British counterparts. If we continue down this path of managed decline and our growth rate stays where it has been over the past decade, families in the UK will be poorer than those in Poland by 2030 and poorer than those in Hungary and Romania by 2040. I see the hon. Member—
Jerome Mayhew
It is a great pleasure to be given the role of the Opposition spokesman from the Back Benches here, but there is a difference between economic data that is factual, has happened and can be verified, and straight-line projections of the future between now and 2030 that have not happened and will not happen.
Tulip Siddiq
As I figured, the hon. Member did not have a response to the question I asked. If we do not break with the Tories’ failed economic model, the necessary underpinnings of a good life—as I have mentioned, fair wages, secure work, a decent home—will be further eroded.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case and making a salient point. Does she agree that the constituents she has already mentioned, who are dealing with all these price hikes—the worst in 45 years—and who come to our constituency offices every week, do not care that we grew faster than Italy in 2010, but they care that they cannot heat their homes now and cannot feed their children and they are worried about their elderly parents? The blame can be laid at nobody’s door but this Conservative Government’s.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is absolutely right. This Conservative fantasy just does not match up to the reality on the ground.
Instead of putting forward a comprehensive plan for growth, successive Conservative Chancellors have made hard-working families pay for their economic failure. The Conservatives have become the party of tax rises for the hard-working majority. Since 2019, the British people have been hit with 24 tax rises. It is the highest tax burden in 70 years. Earlier this month, we saw council tax bills rise above £2,000—some Members might think that is funny; it is not funny for my constituents—for the first time, as the Chancellor effectively forced councils to put up rates by reducing their funding. That saw families who were already struggling hit with an additional average tax hike of 5.1%—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members have something to say, instead of chuntering from a sedentary position, they should intervene. They should not shout from the front.
Simon Baynes
Earlier, the hon. Lady mentioned fair work. Does she agree that the rise in unemployment under the last Labour Government from 2.1 million to 2.5 million, and the 45% increase in youth unemployment, is far removed from fair work?
Tulip Siddiq
May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last Labour Government introduced the first minimum wage, slashed child poverty and slashed pensioner poverty because we grew the economy—something this Government have failed to do?
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and outlining exactly what Labour did in government to make a difference for working people. In Labour-led Wales, where the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) is also an MP, we have just increased the education maintenance allowance, which was scrapped in England, to give students the opportunity not to have to choose between buying books and going to school, and having to find a job to support themselves.
Tulip Siddiq
I hope hon. Members hear that before they start criticising any sort of Labour Government.
Things are only set to get worse. The Government’s stealth tax and freeze on income tax and national insurance contribution thresholds will, according to the Resolution Foundation, cost households £25 billion a year by 2027-28.
Tulip Siddiq
Not now, as I want to make some progress. At the same time, the Chancellor has given the 1% wealthiest pension savers a £1 billion handout, and he has continued to defend the indefensible: the non-domicile tax loophole. Instead of growing the economy and boosting wages, the Conservatives have resorted to hammering ordinary people with tax rises. It is time for a radically different approach.
Tulip Siddiq
I will make a bit of progress. We need a bold plan for growth that confronts the problems of the UK’s declining economy head on. That is why the Government must adopt Labour’s mission to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, with job creation and productivity growth in every part of the country, making everyone, not just a few, better off. That may seem ambitious, but Britain has so much potential.
Tulip Siddiq
I am just about to come to the part of my speech about the windfall tax and business rates, so if the hon. Gentleman listens carefully, he will hear. The talents and efforts of working people and British businesses mean that we lead the way in financial and legal services, and the tech and life sciences sectors. With a proper industrial strategy, the UK economy will not just lead the pack again, but communities written off by the Conservatives will have the backing they need to make their full contribution to our great nation. Labour will achieve that by forging a new covenant between Government and industry, bringing in public investment through our green prosperity plan to support new industries. That will include investment in areas such as fuel cell manufacturing, nuclear, hydrogen and home insulation to bring down energy prices and create well-paid jobs in the industries of the future across the UK, while fixing the holes in the Brexit deal and bringing in a proper supply chain strategy will help to tackle inflation and build the resilient trading economy we need to get ahead.
Labour will work in partnership with businesses to help people get the skills and opportunities they need. We will not leave potential untapped. We will fix the apprenticeship levy, improve local employment services and help first-time buyers get on the housing ladder through a comprehensive mortgage guarantee scheme to boost local living standards. Only Labour, through our plan to grow the economy, will create the conditions for a good life in every part of the country. We will create well-paid jobs, bring home ownership back within reach for young families and ensure that the NHS delivers for all.
Tulip Siddiq
The hon. Member may want to sit down and hear the next bit because I am sure he is going to ask the same question.
However, we also recognise that people need help today. That is why, if Labour were in government today, we would freeze council tax this year to stop bills from rising above £2,000, paid for by an extended windfall tax on oil and gas company profits. Even though Office for National Statistics figures confirm that 2022 was a record year for North sea oil and gas profits—even though the ONS confirmed that—the Conservatives are again choosing to protect the energy giants’ windfalls of war.
Tulip Siddiq
I think the hon. Gentleman should listen, actually.
By refusing to backdate the tax to January 2022, end the investment allowance tax loophole and raise the rate in line with other countries, the Chancellor has left billions on the table, leaving working people to pick up the rising council tax bill. Labour would use the additional funds raised by a proper windfall tax to cut energy bills for domestic food manufacturers and processors, and we would cut business rates for small shops, paid for by properly taxing online giants, to bring down the eyewatering cost of everyday items. We would also reverse the Conservative decision to hand the 1% wealthiest pension savers a £1 billion handout and instead introduce specific measures to keep doctors in work. And we would close the non-dom tax loophole, so people who live and work here pay their tax here. We would use that money to fund one of the biggest expansions of the NHS workforce in history. Those are straightforward measures. The Government could introduce them today to show people they are on their side, but we know they will not because they have given up on Britain.
At the heart of today’s Opposition day debate is a simple question that everyone up and down the country will be asking themselves: “After 13 years of Conservative rule, am I better off?” The simple answer is no. People now have a clear choice: between a tired Conservative Government out of ideas, and a Labour party committed to forging a new partnership with British business to create good jobs and boost wages; between a Conservative Party that puts developers before first-time buyers, and a Labour party committed to the principle of home ownership and giving young families a start in life; and between the Conservatives, the party of high taxation and Government handouts to the wealthiest 1%, and Labour, the party committed to putting working people and businesses first, freezing council tax and cutting business rates to ease the cost of living. Only the Labour party has a serious plan for growth to improve living standards and wages for working people. [Interruption.] Those on the Conservative Benches can laugh all they want, but only the Labour party has a vision of a better life for the British people.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“welcomes the Government’s action to halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt; supports the Government’s extensive efforts to support families up and down the country with the cost of living through significant support to help with rising prices, worth an average of £3,300 per household including direct cash payments of at least £900 to the eight million most vulnerable households; notes the use of a windfall tax on energy firm’s profits to pay around half of the typical family’s energy bill through the Energy Price Guarantee, also notes the fact that the Government has frozen fuel duty for 13 consecutive years to support motorists; welcomes the expansion of free childcare to all eligible parents of children aged nine months to four years old; and notes that Labour will fail to grip inflation or boost economic growth, with their plans for the economy simply leading to unfunded spending, higher debt and uncontrolled migration.”
Even in times of economic challenge, this is a Government who prioritise helping families face down the cost of living. I think Members across all sides of the House recognise that having come through the covid crisis, families and businesses across the country have felt additional global headwinds. After two decades of low inflation, the world has been confronted with fast-growing prices. We are not alone. While we tackle this, our friends in Ukraine are at war and we are supporting them diplomatically, militarily and economically. We have faced down those challenges while supporting our economy and, because of the action we took, we avoided a recession. Our sensible, credible economic plan is working. The International Monetary Fund said we are on the right track, unemployment remains very low by historic standards, and measures in the spring Budget deliver the largest permanent increase in potential GDP that the Office for Budget Responsibility has ever scored in a medium-term forecast, as a result of Government policy.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I realise that this will bring back painful memories for the right hon. Gentleman, but he may recall that the previous Prime Minister crashed the economy. The UK has been uniquely impacted. The issues with Ukraine and covid are impacting the rest of the world, but they are impacting the UK in a slightly different way because of the previous Prime Minister’s actions. I know that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to erase all memory of that, but he must acknowledge that her actions have had a consequence, and the British taxpayer is still paying the price.
Paul Bristow
Could my right hon. Friend help me? Some of the faces on the Opposition Benches seem so glum because we have avoided a recession—could he explain why?
John Glen
My hon. Friend is right. I approach the job of government with a sense of humility about the challenge we face.
I recognise that we have made significant progress in recent months—that has been generally acknowledged. I will now set out where else we will make progress. Although it is welcome that wholesale energy prices have been falling, many families remain under significant pressure. The Government understand that. Food prices are contributing to headline inflation. Rising food prices, however, are not a unique issue to the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) pointed out. It is a problem that advanced economies are facing. For example, as he correctly pointed out, in Germany, food price inflation is above 22%. We are fully alive to the fact that some people remain in real distress. I want to assure Members and their constituents that we will always stand ready to help where we can.
Dr Luke Evans
Is it not about compassion in government? That is why pensioners on a fixed income and people on benefits will receive a 10% increase. Also, the fourth iteration of the household support fund is there directly to help the most vulnerable to get through those tough times.
John Glen
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a moment I will set out exactly what interventions we have made and how we are continuing to intervene to support the most vulnerable in our communities across the United Kingdom.
The best thing we can do to help people’s money go further is to deliver on our plan to halve inflation and grow the economy. In doing so, we will meet the Prime Minister’s five pledges to the British people. Three of those are economic—two of which I have mentioned—and reflect people’s priorities. Inflation makes us all poorer. It has to be tackled head-on, which is why, working closely with the Bank of England, we are bearing down on it. We are also growing the economy.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm the IMF figures that in 2020 to 2022—that important three-year period after we left the EU—the UK was the fastest growing economy of the G7? The Opposition’s forecast that the UK might be a poorer performer this year is just a forecast, and most forecasts are usually wrong.
John Glen
As always, my right hon. Friend is on the money. The point is that forecasts predict many different things. I have been in the Treasury for nearly five years; forecasts for every fiscal event rarely prove to be true at the next fiscal event.
We must continue to focus on taking the right decisions, decision by decision, and prove those forecasters wrong. That means long-term, sustainable and healthy growth that pays for our NHS and schools, finds jobs for young people and provides a safety net for older people, all while making our country one of the most prosperous in the world. It also means reducing debt, which we are on track to do. In fact, because of the decisions we have taken and the improved outlook for the public finances, underlying debt in five years’ time is now forecast to be nearly three percentage points lower than back in the autumn. That means more money for our public services and a lower burden on future generations—deeply held Conservative values, which we put into practice today. It is these steps that will make our country and our people better off. We are also taking action to shelter the most vulnerable while we achieve these longer-term ambitions for the economy.
In the Budget, we announced that the energy price guarantee would remain at £2,500 per year until July 2023. That was funded in part by the energy profits levy that this Government introduced last year, recognising that profit levels in the sector had increased significantly due to very high oil and gas prices caused by global circumstances, including of course Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The levy is expected to raise just under £26 billion between 2022-23 and 2027-28, on top of around £25 billion in tax receipts from the sector in the same period through the permanent tax regime. The energy price guarantee measure will save the average family a further £160 on top of the energy support measures already announced, bringing total Government support for energy bills to £1,500 for the typical household since October 2022.
It is worth recapping those measures. This Government have helped all domestic electricity customers with £400 off their energy bills through the energy bills support scheme. The energy bills support scheme alternative funding provides £400 to around 900,000 households that are not supplied by domestic electricity contracts and are unable to receive support automatically through the energy bills support scheme.
Our support has not stopped there. Alongside holding down energy bills, freezing fuel duty and increasing universal credit, we are giving up to £900 in cost of living payments to households on means-tested benefits. Starting from today, over 8 million families across the UK will receive the first £301 cost of living payment from the Government. That is the first of up to three payments for those on means-tested benefits, totalling £900 through 2023-24. Those entitled do not need to apply for the payment or do anything to receive it. The payments will be accompanied by a payment of £150 for people on eligible disability benefits this summer and a payment of £300 on top of winter fuel payments for pensioners at the end of 2023.
These are carefully designed interventions, targeted at the most vulnerable across communities in the United Kingdom. The latest payment follows on from the £650 cost of living payment delivered to households on means-tested benefits by the Government in 2022, with an additional £150 for individuals on disability benefits and £300 for pensioner households.
The Government of course need to recognise that some people will fall into difficulties. They have enabled local authorities to provide additional support with the cost of household essentials through a 12-month extension to the household support fund in England worth £1 billion, including Barnett funding. We are also ensuring that more than 10 million working-age families will see an increase in their benefit payments from April 2023, based on the September inflation figure of 10.1%.
While we shelter the most vulnerable, the public also rightly expect us to look further to the future, making sure we are taking steps to grow sustainably and securely in the long term. This Government are unashamedly pro-growth, because expanding the productive capacity of the economy is the only way to solve the productivity puzzle, which has dogged us for decades, and improve living standards for all.
One reason we are held back is because a great number of people have left the labour market altogether. As a Conservative, I believe there is virtue in work and getting people into work is the best way to avoid the ills and perils of poverty. There has been an increase of more than 1.5 million working households since 2010, which shows that we are on the side of working families. That includes our new game-changing childcare offer that will entitle working parents in England to 30 hours of free childcare per week, once their child is nine months old, and close the gap between parental leave ending and the current childcare offer.
In addition to making provision on free childcare, the Budget set out to remove barriers for the long-term sick and disabled, for jobseekers and for older people with our pension tax reforms. Part of the plan is welfare reform to support those who have been disengaged from the labour market. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has introduced a White Paper setting out reforms that will support more people who are long-term sick or disabled to try work without any fear of losing their benefits. Other policies that we announced at the Budget will then ensure that those individuals are better supported to stay and succeed in work. Overall, the Office for Budget Responsibility expects the spring Budget package to result in 110,000 more individuals in the labour market by the end of the forecast period.
The UK saw the fastest growth in the G7 over 2021 and 2022. Cumulative growth over the 2022 to 2024 period is predicted to be higher than that of Germany or Japan, and at a similar rate to that of France or the US. We have halved unemployment, cut inequality and reduced the number of workless households by 1 million. We have protected pensioners, those on low incomes and those with disabilities. We are continuing to lay the groundwork for a vibrant, innovative and growing economy that benefits communities and families up and down the country.
Having sat and listened to the shadow Minister—I was not smiling, but reflecting on what I heard—I think it is very unfortunate that the Labour party continues to play politics and snipe from the sidelines without a clear and coherent plan.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I notice that the Opposition motion refers to freezing council tax; the shadow Minister also mentioned freezing council tax under Labour. However, Labour-run Gedling Borough Council is increasing council tax by 2.98% this year, in spite of the fully costed Conservative amendment that would have enabled a council tax freeze. Does my right hon. Friend agree that whereas Labour’s rhetoric is about freezing taxes, the reality is tax, tax and tax again?
John Glen
Absolutely, and I think the good people of Gedling will come to the right conclusions next week.
What is really clear is that this Conservative Government will get on with the business of resetting the conditions for growth after this enormously difficult period. We are setting the conditions for protecting the vulnerable and delivering for the British people. As a united Government, we remain focused on what really matters for the British people. I urge the House to reject the Labour motion.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I was intrigued by the Chief Secretary’s answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) about forecasts: I think he said something along the lines of “For every fiscal event there’s a forecast, and on many occasions it turns out to be wrong.” That may be correct. Is it not passing strange, then, that the Government’s own fiscal charter, which they announced only six months ago, is based on precisely such a forward-looking view, with forecasts on a five-year rolling basis? I think the Government and the Chief Secretary might want to sort their lines out on that one.
I agree with what the Chief Secretary said towards the end of his speech about boosting productivity, which is a perennial problem. He is absolutely right about that, of course, but he will recall from the OBR forecast and the Red Book that productivity growth does not exceed 1.5% in any year of the forecast period. Whatever plan the Government thought they had, they will need to do a little better.
The Chief Secretary quite rightly mentioned the requirement to get more people into the workforce; I think he mentioned having an extra 110,000 people by the end of the forecast period. That is welcome, but it would be a fraction of 1% of the workforce of 33 million. Again, I think it is a case of “Five out of 10—must do better.”
There is much to agree with in the Opposition motion: the condemnation of the Tory Government and their mismanagement of the economy; the regret that the UK is the only G7 country whose economy has not returned to pre-pandemic levels; and the ambition, which I am sure is shared across the House, to secure sustained growth and good jobs. However, I will focus not on macroeconomics, but on the impact on real people of inflation and the cost of living crisis that many of them face, not least because energy price hikes, inflation, and mortgage and rent increases are continuing to erode people’s standard of living. We certainly know from the November OBR forecast that inflation was set to peak at a 40-year high, and that wages and living standards were set to be squeezed by 7%, wiping out all the growth of the past eight years. By March, the OBR was telling us that real disposable income would fall by nearly 6%. We now know that telecoms prices will rise as well: BT confirmed that its costs would rise by 15% on 31 March, O2 is increasing prices for SIM-only customers by 17%, and TalkTalk will increase its prices for landline and broadband customers by 14%.
Grocery prices also continue to climb. In February the increase reached a new record high of 17.1%, and more recently the prices of some goods have risen by 19.1%, which represents the best part of £1,000 per year per household for the average weekly shop. The prices of essential food items have also risen in recent months. The price of two pints of semi-skimmed milk is up from 92p to £1.37, a 49% increase; a litre of olive oil now costs £7.28, which is a 65% increase over the past year, and the price of vegetables has risen by 31% over the same period. However, inflation does not hit all households equally. It has a particularly dire impact on lower-income households, which spend a much higher proportion of their incomes on necessities such as food and energy. For some people, it is even worse than that: those with allergies or special dietary requirements are hit even harder. According to analysis carried out by the Allergy Team, people with specific dietary requirements are now paying up to 73% more for food than those who do not need to buy “free from” products at their local stores.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has warned that low-income families simply do not have the resources to go on bearing the cost of soaring inflation. It noted that
“nine in ten families on Universal Credit said they couldn’t afford the essentials in October last year. Since then, inflation has been in double digits”.
Even the Office for National Statistics told us in April that about half the adult population—49%—were worried about the cost of energy or the cost of food. I think that some of the comments we have heard from Tory Members today spoke volumes. It is almost as if they thought that Tory voters would not be affected by these prices, when half the adult population are worried about the cost of energy or food. I think that they should take notice.
We also know that families are beginning to feel the pain of increased mortgage costs, which, while they may have fallen back a little from the high point last October, are still much higher than they were a year ago; and of course, the central bank has increased the base rate for the 11th consecutive time. Let me put that in context. Nationwide has reported that its standard mortgage rate will rise to nearly 8%—7.74%—on 1 May.
It is rather obvious that, when it comes to the cost of living, the Government should have three urgent tasks. The first is continuing to help families with high energy costs, not by simply freezing the cap—although it is not really a cap at all—but by reducing it from £2,500 to £2,000, as well as maintaining the energy bills support scheme. The second is to bear down on inflation; forcing down energy prices would help with that, as it did last year. Thirdly, as this was mentioned earlier, when it comes to the elements that are under the Government’s control—the next round of public sector pay awards, benefits, the minimum wage and pension settlements—they should ensure that no one falls further behind, and should introduce fairness into the system to pay for it. As the motion says, it could be paid for by a meaningful windfall tax, the ending of non-dom status, the taxing of share buy-backs, and the scrapping of costly vanity nuclear projects.
That is not to say that there is no support from the UK Government—the Chief Secretary referred to some of it, which he rightly described as targeted—but it would be helpful for them to look at the efforts made in Scotland and the range of additional measures that have been put in place there. The Scottish child payment has been further expanded to all eligible six to 15-year-olds. It has increased to £25 a week, and 387,000 children are now forecast to be eligible this year. The various family payments, including the Scottish child payment, could be worth around £10,000 by the time an eligible child turns six, compared with around £1,800 for comparable families in England and Wales. There are more free school lunches during term time for all pupils in primaries 1 to 5, which is the most generous free school meals offer in the UK, saving families on average £400 a year per child.
We have doubled the fuel insecurity fund to support people at risk of self-disconnection or self-rationing of energy. The new winter heating payment that replaces the Department for Work and Pensions system will provide a stable, reliable annual payment, helping 400,000 people. We are maintaining investment in the Scottish welfare fund at £41 million this year, and continuing to invest in discretionary housing payments, with £84 million this year. We are also continuing to provide funding to deliver the council tax reduction scheme. So it is obvious that this Government can, and now should, do more.
Of course, the inflationary pressures that have driven the cost of living crisis are not there by chance. They are not all a consequence of external shocks, and they are not all a result of covid or of Ukraine. The inflationary elephant in the room is Brexit. The London School of Economics has said that
“by the end of 2021, Brexit had already cost UK households a total of £5.8 billion in higher food bills”.
Last year, as prices were rising steeply, the former Bank of England policymaker Adam Posen insisted that 80% of the reason why the UK has the highest inflation of any G7 country was the impact of Brexit on immigration and the labour market. Even the Harvard Economics Review has stated that Brexit
“can be seen as the guilty culprit in Britain’s inflationary crisis.”
I agree with this criticism of the Government. I agree that we should seek higher sustainable growth, but until the inflationary impact of Brexit is even recognised, it will be impossible to fully address the cost of living crisis that so many of our constituents are facing.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will, I am afraid, have to start with a four-minute time limit. We will see where we go from there.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I want to speak very briefly to commend the Government for their efforts, not just over the last couple of years, and not just since the appalling aggression of Putin in Ukraine and the post-pandemic crisis, but all the way back to 2010, when a Conservative coalition Government inherited the biggest mess out. When I was doing a bit of research for this afternoon’s debate, I looked back through the years since 1973. Just look at unemployment. Every single Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came in. When I looked back, I could see that unemployment continued to fall very briefly following the excellent legacy left by a Conservative Government, but then, inexorably, it crept up again. And under Labour, there was no money left when the Conservatives took office in 2010. That is the start of the story. When we look at what really matters to people and at how young people want a role model and want to learn, get out there and get a good job for themselves, we see that unemployment matters so much. In the United Kingdom now, we have the lowest unemployment figures since the early 1970s—in fact, since 1975.
When we look at growth, yes, at the moment we are challenged, as are all economies around the world, but actually, looking at the facts, the UK was growing faster than any economy in the G7 over the last three years, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said. Last year, only the UK had growth of 4%; Germany’s was 1.8%. It is easy for the Opposition to talk about the cost of living crisis and what the Conservative Government have done wrong, but they are not looking at the big picture. They should look at our trade policy. The UK has left the EU, and what are we able to do? We can turn to what is predicted to be the fastest-growing area of the world: Asia. We can expand our global trade and be an advocate for global free trade. There is an opportunity for all nations to rise on the back of more global trade. For so many years, the Opposition tried to scupper the will of the people, as expressed in the Brexit referendum, by preventing us from leaving the EU. Instead, we are now free to form our own trade policy and to trade with the rest of the world, which is fantastic.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for whom I have a lot of time, talked about pensions and the difficulties for people in the UK. I wanted to intervene to ask her about the Leader of the Opposition. Bearing in mind that he had legislation to protect his own pension—with no lifetime allowance, can protect his family as much as he likes—will he resile from that? Will he scrap that little statutory instrument, so that he can be in the same boat as the rest of us? Or is it one rule for him and a different rule for the rest of the country? [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Mr Elmore, you have a fantastic baritone voice. Save it for singing.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
This cost of living crisis is “unlike anything we’ve seen”. Those are the words of Citizens Advice, which is truly on the frontline when it comes to the real bread-and-butter problems people face.
We know that the rising cost of essentials impacts those on the lowest incomes the most. I used to talk about bumps in the road—unexpected life events that derail people, such as job loss or bereavement—but increasing numbers of people are simply running out of road. There is more debt and more unmanageable debt, and more demand for advice services. StepChange and Citizens Advice both say that the size and scale of the debt crisis is unlike anything they have seen before.
The debt crisis means more borrowing, too. StepChange has found that people who use credit cards and overdrafts to pay for essentials, as more and more people do, are 10 times more likely to be in problem debt than those who do not. Some 1.4 million people are relying on high-cost credit to cover rent and other household bills.
There is also a relatively new phenomenon: the negative budget. This is when, even after debt advice sessions and budget counselling, a client’s income is not enough to meet their essential outgoings. Half of Citizens Advice clients and a third of StepChange clients are in that predicament. That is particularly worrying because it requires a rethink of how to support the most financially vulnerable. Yes, there are practical measures, but we need to better fund our advice agencies, which are seeing an enormous increase in demand. We have to be careful that this includes provision for face-to-face advice in addition to virtual advice, because people sometimes need to see a trusted adviser before going to another channel.
We need to overhaul the type of debt solutions that advice agencies can offer. I welcome the breathing space that gives debtors respite from their creditors while they get their finances on track. I also welcome the expanded access to debt relief orders and the fresh start that bankruptcy can bring, but the up-front application fees are pricing people out of these options with nowhere to go. Applying for a debt relief order costs £90 and declaring bankruptcy costs £680, and those are up-front fees. They are simply not affordable for people who need such options, particularly those with negative budgets, and we need to consider how to fund them.
We should also be wary of individual voluntary arrangements. Too many people are forced into IVAs without the impartial advice they need to ensure they are the best option for them. In fact, it is probably time to undertake a full, holistic review of debt solutions. We need a simple, straightforward system that ensures people in debt are always able to access the system that best suits their needs, through independent, impartial advice that is suited to the individual. Such a review must look at enforcement, as the use of bailiffs is far too widespread. I was pleased to sponsor the launch of the Enforcement Conduct Board, but it needs to be put on a statutory footing. It is vital that creditors have to use a bailiff that is accredited by the ECB, and that includes central and local government, who are some of the worst offenders.
There is no easy solution to the cost of living crisis, but for those who have reached the end of the road and can see no way out of their debt, we need to move from temporary fixes and piecemeal solutions to a long-term, sustainable plan.
Several hon. Members rose—
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak so early in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The fact is that unprecedented international conditions have led to instability in our economy. Given the global world in which we live, any international crisis can and will have an impact at a national level sooner or later. I am proud that the UK has long been at the forefront of work to forge an international system characterised by stability and co-operation. This Government have always taken very seriously their responsibilities as a member of the G7, the G20 and the Commonwealth of Nations. This Government proudly took on the leadership of COP26 and rallied the world’s Heads of State and Government to take action on climate change.
Despite all those commendable efforts, there are some things that this or any other Government cannot predict or control. The Government cannot predict when a potentially deadly virus will cause a pandemic; they cannot control when a dangerous autocrat marches his troops into a neighbouring country; and they most definitely cannot control the weather. However, when listening to the Labour Front Bencher’s speech, one got the sense that had Labour been in power there would, magically, have been no pandemic, war or adverse weather. The public are listening and they are not stupid. They have experienced those things with us and they will not be taken in by what the Opposition say.
From the covid pandemic to Putin’s senseless war in Ukraine, and bad weather conditions in north Africa and Spain, this Government have been tested time and again. Our constituents across the country are feeling the squeeze caused by those events, but this Government have been there to help them deal with the burden of high energy bills, soaring inflation and uneven food availability. Actions always speak louder than words, and the actions of this Government are clear: we have provided £94 billion in cost of living support, helping the most vulnerable in our society; the energy price guarantee has been extended for three months; and three cost of living payments totalling £900 are going directly into the bank accounts of those on means-tested benefits, starting today.
But what about the words? The words of Labour’s motion are nothing but a smokescreen for its past and present lack of grip on the economy. The party that casually left a note saying that there was “no money left” now criticises the Conservative Government who have grown our economy at a faster rate than those of France, Japan and Italy since 2010, and at the same rate as Germany since the Brexit referendum. The party under which youth unemployment rose by nearly 45% criticises the party under which the total unemployment rate has fallen to a near 50-year low. When it comes to the economy, it is only the Conservative party that the British people can trust. The Labour party has never left government with unemployment lower than when it took office or with the economy on a better footing.
Even in opposition, Labour advocates for the same disastrous recipe of unfunded spending commitments and yet more borrowing. So far, the bill that Labour would saddle taxpayers with stands at £90 million in spending commitments that are plucked out of thin air—that is roughly £3,000 per household. All that comes with a good serving of borrowing, to the tune of £28 billion each year until 2030.
Going back to the motion before the House, I advise the Labour party to get on with understanding the people’s priorities and how the economy actually works. Labour should stop using the non-dom tax status as a cheap political attack under the guise of economic policy and stop going on about a windfall tax, which this Government introduced last May and increased as part of the autumn statement last November.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Listening to the Minister, I get the distinct impression that Labour’s Front Benchers and Labour colleagues more generally are simply making things up; it is as though the cost of living crisis does not exist. But I know that the cost of living crisis is getting worse as the days go by and that it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to afford even the most basic consumables. I am sure that the Minister can afford to pay attention to this, even if he cannot afford much else under his Government’s mess. I did expect a bit more originality from him in explaining away the crisis. It is now getting pretty tedious listening to the same old claptrap about global headwinds, international disruption, the impact of the war in Ukraine, supply line challenges due to this or that, or the covid landscape.
There was no mention of the Government’s part in the debacle. The Government—not a Cameron Government, not a May Government, not a Johnson Government, not a Truss Government, not even a Sunak Government, but a Tory Government—have been in office for 13 years. I know that it feels much longer than 13 years, but does the Minister grasp that at all? He seems to think that the previous four Administrations have nothing to do with the current Administration. Well, I have a bit of unwelcome news for him: they do.
The Minister may be surprised to learn that we have had seven Chancellors of the Exchequer since 2010, which is, on average, about one every two years. If we put the six-year chancellorship of George Osborne aside, we have had, on average, a new Tory Chancellor every 12 months. The Minister may be even more surprised to find out that they have all been Tory Chancellors—yes, all seven of them. In fact, I will let him into a little secret: the current Prime Minister used to be one of them.
Does the Minister not think that such lack of continuity, on top of the general incompetence, may have had a bearing on the current parlous state of the economy? Does he not think that such an environment of chaos has had a bearing on the cost of living crisis? Does he seriously expect us to believe that the Government’s actions have made things better? Does he seriously expect us to swallow the narrative that all this financial, fiscal and economic entropy was foisted on an otherwise competent coterie of Tory Chancellors who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time over a period of 13 years?
Between them, that list of failed Chancellors broke their own fiscal rules at least 11 times, if I recall rightly. Has that not had anything to do with the current cost of living crisis? Have cutting housing benefit, bringing in the bedroom tax, freezing child benefit and making changes to tax credit not had a bearing on the cost of living crisis? What about the 10-year virtual freeze in public sector pay? How about the cuts to schools or the justice system? It goes on and on, but the Government will take no responsibility whatsoever for it.
What about the issue of debt? The Minister should be unsurprised to learn that Tory Governments have been responsible for the bulk of all Government debt—a debt currently standing at £2.5 trillion. They claim to be the party of sound finance, but they are not. They have managed to pay back 0.5% of all the money they have borrowed. They say they are the party of economic confidence. That is a joke.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Nobody should be terribly surprised that we face difficult economic times if a Government lock an economy down for nearly two years; if they pay 7 million, 8 million or 9 million people to sit at home; if they provide grants to keep companies in business; and if they intervene on an unprecedented level. Indeed, the intervention to get us through the worst pandemic since 1918 was almost on the scale of a world war. The Government are to be commended for doing what they did to save lives.
Following that, we have had a major economic crisis and war in Ukraine. That has caused an almost unprecedented spike in energy prices. The last time they rose as much was in 1974. Both those factors have had a big effect on Governments, businesses and individuals. The Government have done an awful lot to try to safeguard people’s living standards. They have provided a cap on energy prices, they have provided a £400 grant, they have put the pension up by 10.1%, they have put benefits up and they are providing special payments. Billions have been spent on supporting people, and that is quite right in an extraordinary time.
Of course we can always have a political argument about whether we should do more or do less, but the most important point is to have an economic policy that gets us through the immediate crisis and into better times when the sun will shine. The good news is that in the course of this year, inflation is expected to fall substantially. We already see a fall in input price inflation figures, and a fall will come through in food prices and energy prices in the course of the year.
There is a debate about whether we will have 2% or 3% inflation, but given that it looks from the negotiations as though pay will go up a little bit, it is clear that inflation will fall below the level of pay increases sometime this summer. We will then have a situation where living standards start to recover. I do not pretend that people will immediately turn round and say, “This is great!”, because it takes several months for people to feel that that has happened, but we are heading towards a situation where the big reductions in living standards that have taken place over the last 12 months, and which have understandably made my party unpopular and made the public mood very scratchy, will start to reverse.
Through sound financial policies, the Government have done their best to keep a stable economy and set us on a path for growth. Looking at the public sector finance figures today, I hope that, when it is prudently responsible to do so, we will increase incentives by reducing tax. That in itself will help some of those who are struggling.
I think the Government are on the right track. I have no doubt that this is a difficult time for many of our constituents, but I do not think anybody can complain that we have not done what we can. I look forward, over the next three, six and 12 months, to a better economic situation. Ultimately, the argument that we are having on the Floor of the House is this: if people feel miserable and badly off, they will vote us out of office, and if they feel that things are going better, they may well vote us back in. I am optimistic.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I wish we did not need this debate, but unfortunately, as all Opposition Members know, the cost of living crisis is biting harder than ever. As we have heard, under the Conservatives, food prices have risen at the highest rate for more than 45 years. I want to speak today about the implications of that for disabled people and those with long-term health conditions.
Depending on the nature of their disability, some people have difficulty preparing certain foods and rely on pre-prepared or convenience foods, which frequently works out more expensive than buying raw ingredients. The price of ready meals rose by almost 22% in 2022. If, for example, someone has difficulty standing or sitting for long enough to prepare a meal from scratch, they may feel that they have no choice but to pay those prices.
Rising food costs are also a huge source of concern for those on specialist medical diets. In a report published last month, Coeliac UK revealed that a gluten-free weekly shop can be up to 20% more expensive than a standard shop. For example, the cheapest loaves of gluten-free bread cost more than seven times the standard equivalent.
Even before the pandemic and the current cost of living crisis, disabled people faced extra costs of £583 per month on average—the so-called disability price tag. Scope is set to reveal an updated figure tomorrow, which I understand is substantially higher. I can confirm that the new statistics show that the extra cost of disability is equivalent to 63% of household income after housing costs. If, for example, a non-disabled household spends £100 per week on their food shop, an equivalent disabled household will need an additional £63. Again, even before the cost of living crisis, people with coeliac disease and those with other specialist diets faced higher prices when accessing essential foods.
When the price of everything has risen so substantially and there are fewer opportunities to shop around, it follows that those who are already at the sharp end will be hit hardest. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a shocking disparity. I hope to hear in his concluding remarks that he will pay close attention to Scope’s announcement tomorrow on the disability price tag, and lay out a clear plan to alleviate the financial pressure on the people hit hardest, first by covid and now by the cost of living crisis.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I take this issue very seriously. Clearly, families across the country are feeling the pinch at the moment. We in this House are all keen to address the issue in a constructive and sympathetic manner.
I am delighted that 9,100 families in Clwyd South will receive £301 from the Government as the latest cost of living payments begin to be sent out today. That cost of living payment is being made to more than 8 million families on means-tested benefits across the UK. It is the first of three cost of living payments that will, together, total £900. Some families will receive £1,350 of support. Those payments will be accompanied by a £150 payment for people on disability benefits, and a £300 payment for pensioners at the end of 2023, on top of winter fuel payments.
That is part of a much larger programme by the Government to support vulnerable people in these difficult times. Indeed, the cost of living package to help the most vulnerable has been worth £94 billion. A key part of this is addressing inflation. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, we expect inflation to halve by the end of this year, so the issues that we have at the moment and to which the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) referred will mitigate themselves, and we will see inflation come down later in the year.
I am proud to represent a Government who, in these difficult times, have gone out of their way to support people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) said in his excellent speech. I will not go back over the pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine, but as he said, those issues put exceptional pressure on the UK economy, and Labour Members need to take that on board and at least acknowledge it in their remarks, which, so far, they seem not to have done.
We have to be realistic about what we can do to help people in a time of crisis. I am pleased that we are extending the energy price guarantee, at £2,500, for three months from April to July, which will help families to save an average of £160 on their energy bills. The extension means that, thanks to Government support, families will have saved £1,500 on their energy bills since October 2022. I strongly support a number of other measures: the uprating of benefits and the state pension in line with inflation protects the most vulnerable households; freezing fuel duty for a 13th consecutive year saves the average driver about £200; extending our household support fund to more than £2 billion ensures that local authorities can support the most vulnerable in their communities; raising the national living wage by 9.7% increases wages by an average of £1,600 for 2 million low-paid workers. Those measures will support the most vulnerable in our society.
I intervened earlier on the Labour Government’s record on unemployment between 1997 and 2010. During that period, the number of unemployed people increased from 2.1 million to 2.5 million, and there was a 45% increase in youth unemployment. As we have seen in a number of comments—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I call Alex Davies-Jones.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The central issue that we are debating is very simple; there is a very simple question to address: after 13 years of Conservative rule in Westminster, do our constituents feel better off than before? [Interruption.] Exactly. I know from talking to residents and people across my constituency of Pontypridd and Taff Ely, and from being on the doorstep across the UK in the past few weeks, that the answer is a clear and resounding no. Across the country, every single family has felt the impact of what the Trussell Trust and many others have described as a cost of living emergency. When we look across all the indicators, it is no wonder, with inflation reaching a four-year high, an average family’s weekly food shop up over £700 this year, and the essentials of housing, fuel and power up almost £1,500 on average. All the while, real wages have stagnated and Britain has slipped behind other developed nations—all of this on the Conservative Government’s watch.
The Government have completely failed to get a grip on the crisis, while the human cost continues to be utterly devastating. Nowhere is that more apparent to me than in my own patch in the south Wales valleys, where, according to data from the Office for National Statistics, residents in my local authority of Rhondda Cynon Taff report life-quality indicators lower than the UK average, including on life expectancy, happiness, the local employment rate and disposable household income. All of that is thanks to more than a decade of inaction by this incompetent Tory Government.
Let us be clear: as the cost of living crisis continues to rage, regional inequality is deepening by the day. So much for levelling up—we are not even levelling equal. Our incredible local authority, together with the Welsh Labour Government, as I have said, are moving heaven and earth to do what they can to help people in these exceptional circumstances, including with RCT’s regular food support grants to our local food banks. Those grants, together with the amazing food bank volunteers, are a lifeline to thousands of my constituents, who need support now more than ever. Sadly, the RCT area saw a 14% rise in food bank usage in the last year. Despite local efforts, the UK Tory Government continue to sit on their hands by not granting devolved nations the proper support they need and people in Wales are being let down.
I am immensely proud that our local food bank collected an incredible 16,000 kilos of food donations from generous shoppers at local supermarkets in the last year, but it is an indictment of the UK Government’s failures that my constituents have had to step in where the Government have failed. While the UK Tory Government desperately attempt to shift media coverage from the realities—they gloss over the fact that they crashed the economy last September—we all know the truth. The cost of living crisis is far from over. Later this week, I will host a dedicated cost of living event for my constituents in a local community centre in Rhydyfelin because these issues are ongoing. They are all too real and felt all too keenly. Again, it is a heavy indictment of the UK Government that my team and I have received so many messages from terrified constituents unable to feed themselves or pay their bills. That is why it is absolutely right that colleagues have focused on the impact of the cost of living crisis on individual consumers, households and families.
Another heartbreaking consequence of this crisis is that, with people spending less, inevitably businesses are suffering, too. In my constituency, we are fortunate to have some incredible independent businesses and our high street is thriving. I am shocked, however, by the responses from businesses on this issue. They cannot cope with the rising cost of energy bills or business rates. They are struggling to support themselves and, when our businesses struggle, our local economy struggles, too.
I could go on, but sadly we are limited for time. We must move beyond a sticking plaster for our economy and embrace real, ambitious change to ease the cost of living crisis and unlock economic growth. After 13 years of failed Tory rule, it is clear that only a Labour Government in Westminster are capable of that change.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Yet again, in the face of the serious challenges that we and many other nations face, Labour chooses to play politics. The pressure on households is real, but does the Labour party really believe that economic issues are defined by national borders? For example, UK food inflation in March was 19.1%. The EU average at the time was slightly higher, at 19.2%. Several EU countries face much higher inflation, including food price inflation of up to 44.8%. The International Monetary Fund shows that the UK inflation rate is the same as Sweden’s, and only slightly higher than Germany’s.
Do the Opposition really believe that this is solely a national issue? They seem to forget that we have had a pandemic, war in Europe and a resulting energy crisis. Our Conservative Government did not cause any of those, but they did respond, not by playing politics or by pointing fingers, but by delivering for people and protecting households. When people needed help, we provided covid support to households and businesses, the largest increase in benefits and the state pension for 32 years, direct support with energy bills for every household, and direct cash payments of at least £900 to the most vulnerable households. We lowered the universal credit taper rate, increased the minimum wage and froze fuel duty, and we are now investing in more affordable childcare so that parents can return to work knowing that their children are getting a great start in life, too. But unlike Labour, we do not simply spend with no plan for tomorrow: we work to rebalance our economy after each shock. That is why we have a plan to halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt. We are supporting research and development and promoting the UK as the future for life science and STEM industries. We are leading on green energy and carbon capture, and delivering new jobs and investment through freeports and investment zones.
Not only are we helping nationally, but well-run local authorities such as Runnymede Borough Council are delivering excellent services and administering direct financial support while maintaining low council tax. I am pleased by the timing of this debate, as it highlights what is at stake in the upcoming elections. If people want good governance and support locally, tackling the challenge of inflation, they need to vote Conservative on 4 May. The Conservatives have a clear economic plan; Labour only has a soundbite.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I wonder whether Government Members need to work on their lines a bit because they seem to be saying, “There was nothing we could do—there has been a war in Ukraine and covid.” That leads us to ask, what is the point of them really if there is nothing they can do when there is a pandemic and when our country is in need?
The defining question for people to hold in their minds as they vote in the election is this: “Do I really want another five years of this?” In everything, in every way, the 13 failed years of Conservative Government and Lib Dem coalition rule—the Lib Dems do seem to forget that they were part of it for five years—have failed our country and prevented us from reaching our potential. If growth had continued at the same rate as it did under a Labour Government, we would have an extra £40 billion for our public services.
But what makes me really angry about this Government is the way in which they have made too many people feel like this is as good as it gets, that we do not deserve to have good public services, or that good public services are beyond our reach. In the next elections, they are relying on people giving up hope—hope that our country can be so much better than it is today.
When Labour left office, public satisfaction in the NHS was the highest it had ever been. We were so proud of our achievements in the NHS that, in the 2012 Olympics, we put it on show for the whole world to see. That was how much we celebrated it, but not only have this Government broken our NHS—they are revelling in breaking the people who are working for it. They are telling working people in this country that their ambition to not just survive, but actually live a life, is beyond their reach, however small they may think it is. They tell them instead, “No, strive instead for 30p meals. That is as good as you are going to get under this Government—30p for your meal and that is it.”
If people want more than that, that is when all the cheerleaders will have a go. If they want to work with their trade unions to fight for a better salary so they can afford a bit more to eat, that is unreasonable; it is so unreasonable that this Government introduced legislation to stop workers being able to come together to fight for the salaries that they actually need. When we look at our international comparators, we see that the French are 10% richer and the Germans are 19% richer, and that is a result of this Government. They are continuing to fail us. Our country is seeing what happens when low-paid workers are told by this Government, “Go and get another job.” Well, they are going to go and get another job in adult social care, and look at what has happened there.
The last Labour Government achieved so much: the longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s, low mortgage rates, the national minimum wage, 14,000 more police in England and Wales, a cut in crime of 32%, child benefit up by 26%, 36,000 more teachers and 274,000 more support staff. That is what the last Labour Government achieved. This Conservative Government can judge the Labour party on our record, and on 4 May, the public will judge the Conservatives on theirs. [Hon. Members: “More!”] I will save it for next time.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) is right to feel empathy and sympathy and to feel angry for the people challenged by the cost of living, as everyone in this House does, whatever side they are on. Families are struggling right across the country and that is because of inflation, which steals money from everyone’s pockets. The best cure for all the issues we have all been discussing on either side of the House is to deal with inflation, yet in its 12-line motion on the cost of living, Labour has not made any mention at all of the Government’s intervention to reduce the level of household inflation. It is as though the Opposition are not aware of the £94 billion package that the Government have instituted over the last period. That is an average of £3,300 of Government support per household, which is having a direct impact on reducing the headline level of inflation. It includes halving people’s energy bills over this winter at an average of £1,500 of support per household. That has been extended to the summer, when prices are forecast to come down.
There is an enormous irony that we are having this Opposition day debate on the cost of living, on a motion with no mention of Government support, on the very day when £301 has landed in the bank accounts of the 8 million most-vulnerable families in the country through the household support fund. However, the motion does have some positive suggestions to make. It suggests we should freeze council tax. The best way for people to ensure that their council tax is frozen is to vote Conservative on 4 May. People should come and look at my council in Norfolk, Broadland District Council, which has frozen council tax not for one year, but for the past two years. If Labour councils were serious about helping people with the cost of living, they would run their councils just as efficiently as we do, and they would keep their council tax down and freeze it.
The other thing that the Opposition have done today is to have the first Opposition day debate on water infrastructure, yet in that debate, the effect of what they were arguing for with their so-called plan would have had the effect of increasing water bills by a full £1,000 a household. Is that joined-up opposition? I do not think so. What we have is the Conservatives giving £3,300 of support per household and freezing council taxes more often than not in Conservative-run districts such as my own, against Labour which, through its policy requirements, is saying we should increase bills by £1,000 and have higher council taxes in areas they represent. The best solution to the cost of living crisis is to halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt while supporting the most vulnerable in our society. Those are the priorities of my constituents and constituents right around the country, and they are the priorities of this Government.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I would like to raise the terrifying consequences of the declining living standards experienced by my constituents in West Derby and by people across the city of Liverpool. One third of the people in my city are now in some kind of food poverty. Two thirds of my constituents are having to cut back on hot water, heating or electricity. The crisis was not inevitable; it has been fuelled by political choices—the political choice of Tory Governments to privatise our utilities and infrastructure; the political choice to allow profiteering in supermarkets and the oil and gas companies; the political choice of this Government to inflict 13 years of brutal austerity on my constituents; and the political choices to cut our vital public services to the bone, to decimate the social safety net and state pension, to strip away workers’ rights and to create a crisis of insecure contracts and low pay. The Government’s political choices have destroyed the services that can be the difference between life and death for many of my constituents in these times of crisis.
The rise of 19.2% in the price of food in the past year is the highest since 1977, and it is alongside the sharpest fall in real wages since 1977. The Resolution Foundation calculated that had wages continued to grow as they were before the financial crash of 2008, the average worker would make £11,000 more a year than they do now, taking rising prices into account—imagine where we would be. Recently, the Food Foundation reported that child food poverty has doubled in a year: 3.7 million children—one in five—have eaten less, skipped meals or gone without meals for an entire day. We are in danger of losing a generation of children through no fault of their own. Those who will shape the future of our nation will not reach their full potential because of the preventable scourge of hunger.
It is a disgraceful injustice that many of my constituents and so many children across this country are in this situation, yet at the same time inflation has been fuelled by “greedflation”, with supermarkets, food manufacturers and shipping companies protecting shareholder dividends by giving extra lifts to prices. Unite the union has highlighted:
“Despite the rise in wholesale prices, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Asda still managed to increase their profits by an astonishing 97% in 2021.”
At a recent sitting of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, we heard evidence from the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, who told us:
“Corporations have a significant amount of power in markets”,
but
“Governments have tools in place to stabilise prices.”
In West Derby, there are nurses, educators, firefighters, postal workers, rail staff and civil servants all using food banks. This is one of the most grave and frightening crises we have seen in our lifetimes. The situation simply cannot go on, so I ask the Minister to intervene now to support my constituents and services in West Derby, and curb the selfish profiteering by some companies in the food supply chain and energy industry.
I also call on the Minister to make food a legal right for all, to enshrine the right to food in legislation, and to end the scandal of hunger and food banks once and for all, beginning by providing universal free school meals for every primary and secondary pupil in state education. Let us heed this evidence, and invest in our communities and our children. We do not need sticking plasters and tinkering around the edges. We need the kitchen sink throwing at this dire situation for millions to transform the future of our nation. We should demand nothing less and settle for nothing less.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
The cost of living is the No. 1 issue that comes up on doorsteps. That is why it is so important the Government are working on their plan to reduce inflation by at least half, and it looks as though it is going to come down by a lot more than that. Today is a good day to have this debate, because it is the day that 8 million people—actually, more than 8 million people—will get the first instalment of the £900 cost of living payment, including nearly 9,000 people in my constituency.
There is a lot in this motion, from economic growth to wages, taxes and energy. I will try to skip through as many of those as I can, beginning with economic growth. In every year since 2010 until we hit the pandemic, the economy grew. It grew by 19.2% during that period, with the third highest growth in the G7. We saw during that period, until the pandemic, fantastic employment figures as well. When Labour left office in 2010, unemployment was 8%, and it is now less than 4%. We saw the equivalent of 1,000 people being added to the workforce every single day in that period up to 2019. On youth unemployment, which is of particular interest to me, Labour left office with it at over 20% and it is now also at a historical low.
On wages, the national living wage since 2016 has seen an average of £5,000 go into people’s annual wages. The Labour party does not want to talk about pensions in this motion, which is okay, but I will just note that this Government’s triple lock policy has added £2,300 to the value of the state pension, and we must not forget the important role that plays for pensioners with the cost of living.
On taxes, I welcome Labour to the cause of being concerned about taxes being too high. It is not their record in government, but better late than never. We have doubled the personal allowance to more than £12,500 on which people pay no tax whatsoever. This motion says that Labour wants to freeze council tax. I doubt its local authorities would be supportive of that. However, leaving that to one side, there is this awkward fact that in the 13 years of this Government so far council tax has gone up by 36%, but in the 13 years of the Labour Government it went up by 110%. It is easy to be in favour of council tax and everything else being lower when a party is not in power, but it is slightly harder when it has to make such decisions.
Turning to energy prices, through the combination of the rebate and the energy price guarantee, families have been saved £1,500 on their energy bills since October. This is a huge investment by a Government to help keep down the cost of living, paid for by a windfall tax that the Labour party says it wants to extend. It is already going until 2028, so we have taken the action that Labour is just talking about all the time, pretending that we have not done so already.
The Prime Minister wants the country to take maths more seriously, and I think he is right. Maths is important for people in the labour market. I have never asked him, but I have a feeling that maths is always in his mind, because when he sits on the Front Bench, he looks across at a sea of Labour MPs who do not take maths seriously at all. Every week we are told that if we end non-dom status, put VAT on private school fees and use the windfall tax, we can pay for whatever our hearts desire—childcare, council tax, freezing energy bills, free breakfast clubs, whatever we like. That is totally unserious. There is no greater example of the anti-maths mindset than the Labour party, and as usual its sums do not add up.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
In terms of maths, no matter how far a number of my constituents try to make the pennies stretch, they are just not stretching enough. Families’ incomes continue to go down and costs continue to go up. That is the reality of the Tory Government. The cost of living crisis has been going on for some time, and it is important that we do not talk about it as something normal and something we should accept. Every day I see that with my constituents, who are so desperate with nowhere to go. We see it in our casework and our advice surgeries. Household incomes are being squeezed. To put that in context, food prices are going up 50% faster than elsewhere in the G7, putting Britain’s food inflation rate at a staggering 19.2%. That is not some abstract maths figure from economists; that is felt in people’s weekly shop. When people go to the supermarket, they find that the price of sugar is up by 42%, milk is up by a third, and pasta by a quarter. Those are basic food items that families need to survive. That is the maths they are struggling with when they struggle to pay for this cost of living crisis.
I want to highlight the impact of this crisis on young people, which far too often we forget. We talk about young people being the future, but a number of them are struggling to live day to day. They are struggling with zero-hours contracts. We see the claims about youth unemployment going down, but these young people are in insecure jobs—Deliveroo jobs. That is not aspiration. That is not what I want for young people in Vauxhall. I want them to have long-term careers, not insecure jobs, yet that is the reality behind the figures that Conservative Members keep citing.
I am proud to represent Vauxhall. On my visits to schools and youth centres I seebold and passionate-thinking young people, but a number of them feel that politics is not for them, does not speak to them, and that the economy is skewed against them. The sad reality is that they are right. Instead of the Government getting behind votes at 16, votes are being supressed next month with the introduction of voter ID. Why are the Government so scared of allowing young people to vote? Why?
Figures from Barnardo’s show that one in four young people now live in poverty, and sadly many more face going hungry. Yesterday, children from Stockwell Primary School visited Parliament, and they spoke to me about their worries and concerns. I recently co-chaired an event of the all-party group for London, with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). We hosted an event with a youth charity, London Youth, to hear directly from young people about what the cost of living crisis is doing to them. We heard how many of them are having to take on weekend jobs alongside their schoolwork, just to support their families who are struggling. We heard stories of young people stepping up to care for their younger siblings, because their parents are having to work more hours because childcare is extortionate. We heard about those young people’s abject lack of hope of being able to move and have secure roots because—guess what?—they cannot afford to buy.
I have spoken about the need for us to end section 20 notices, and the impact that the cost of living crisis is having on insecure housing. If we want our young people to have hope, be successful, and contribute to the economy, we need to support them by not abandoning them, and by not making them suffer through the cost of living crisis. We need to give those young people hope, and that will happen only with a Labour Government.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
In her opening remarks, the shadow Minister asked what planet Conservative Members are living on. I will tell her. We live in the real world, whereas it seems that Labour Members have been living under a rock. We have just emerged from the worst pandemic since 1918, a new disease that killed millions of people globally and as a result saw much of the international economy grind to a halt. That tragedy was compounded by the brutally evil ambitions of President Putin when he launched his illegal and inhumane invasion of Ukraine. Not only has his regime murdered countless innocent civilians; his actions have had a massive impact on energy prices, further adding to the cost pressures experienced globally. And that is just it: this is a global problem—not national, global.
The rise in the cost of living over the past year has impacted on all our constituents. Nobody denies that, least of all the Government. It is surely the very reason why the first of the Prime Minister’s priorities is to halve inflation, which will, in and of itself, bring massive benefit to everybody who is struggling with rising prices and the cost of living. As the late and much-missed Baroness Thatcher said, “inflation devalues us all”. As on so many issues, she was absolutely right.
The good news is that the Bank of England is clear that inflation will fall dramatically this year. Indeed, one of the biggest deflationary tools in the Government’s extraordinary package to help my constituents with the cost of living was the energy price guarantee, which lowered bills for the vast majority of my constituents and the constituents of every single Member in this House. That has helped to curb the inflationary spike caused by what we are seeing day in, day out in Ukraine.
It is not just support with domestic energy on which the Government have helped my constituents. Fuel duty has been frozen for the 13th consecutive year, saving drivers some £200. Let us contrast that with what Labour is doing for people who drive. We need look no further than the Mayor of London. He is costing my constituents money with the ill thought through imposition of his new ultra low emission zone tax. People from Aylesbury who need to drive to parts of outer London for their work or for specialist hospital appointments will now have to pay £12.50 a day for the privilege—no help from the Labour Mayor with the cost of living.
What have we done as a Government? We have come up with a package of support worth £94 billion—an average of £3,300 per household. As we have heard, Conservative Members recognise that we are supporting low-income households with £900 in cost of living payments, the first of which is finding its way into constituents’ bank accounts from today. In Aylesbury, more than 10,000 stand to benefit from that assistance.
Growth and prosperity go hand in hand with improved productivity. That is what my constituents told me on Saturday that they want to see. I am so pleased that the Chancellor has rightly started work in that direction. In time, I would like to see the Government reverse measures on IR35 and reconsider the VAT threshold, because I believe that will help with those ambitions, but it has to come as our economy strengthens following the unprecedented shocks it received in recent times.
Labour offers the prospect of unfunded spending and higher debt. That is not a recipe to help people with the cost of living; it is a recipe for another letter from Labour telling us there is no money left. It is the Conservative party that will provide the short-term help and the long-term policies to enable the British people to enjoy greater prosperity now and far into the future. It is the Conservative Government who are building the stronger economy to help with the cost of living.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
There is a cost of living crisis in energy, food and other aspects. It is all part of a wider age of austerity being imposed on us by the few and inflicted on the many. It is, of course, affected by international matters, acknowledged by Members on both sides of the Chamber, which no Government could ignore. Fundamentally, however, political choices have been made, not just recently but over decades, that are causing the issues and the problem. It is not simply about the plight of the poorest, which I will come on to. The middle class is now being squeezed. I was in a rather prosperous town in my constituency speaking to a minister in a church where most parishioners would think of themselves as being at least on the ladder of prosperity. He was talking about the extent of poverty that people are feeling because mortgages are going up, and the fact that with the lack of increase in their wages, they cannot deal with the additional factors that are squeezing their income.
As well as the poor being impoverished, the middle class is now being impoverished. At the same time, let us remember that Brexit and covid, which the Government say have caused difficulties and plead as an excuse, have created millionaires and billionaires. People on the Government Benches and in the House of Lords have benefited significantly from political choices that have impacted on not just the poorest but the middle class.
My constituency is by no means the poorest part of Scotland. It is an energy-rich and food-rich area with arable land, yet there is food and energy poverty, which is shameful. The situation of food poverty was brought to my attention by the local food bank, which sent an email on 17 April saying:
“It’s been a busy start to the year”.
Let us remember that we are not even one third into it. It continues:
“we’ve already sent out 1500 emergency food supplies to 3647 people supporting 1210 households in East Lothian. Last month…saw the highest demand ever for foodbank services with 565 emergency food supplies…1 in 3 people supported were children.”
Two thirds of those referred were people whose income was from benefits or work, but who simply could not make ends meet. That is the situation that we are in. It cannot be blamed simply upon Putin, or weather and other catastrophes. It is down to political choices that have been made, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), said, not simply in recent years with Brexit and covid but by Governments over decades. We have an energy-rich county—East Lothian has Torness power station and offshore wind at Cockenzie and Torness—yet we have fuel poverty to match the food poverty that exists. It is not simply that kids are going hungry—they are going cold. It is absurd, when the volume of energy we need is there in the fuels that exist in our community. It is all down to political choices.
I agree with a lot of the sentiment expressed from the Opposition Benches. This problem has been ongoing for decades. Change will not come in the local elections or in this Chamber. Change can come only when Scotland becomes an independent nation and ends the poverty forced upon our people for generations.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today, first to recognise the challenging times that we live in. Although Mansfield is increasingly affluent—average incomes have risen—there remain pockets of significant disadvantage and high levels of economic inactivity. In those pockets, poor health, poor housing and being out of the workforce contribute significantly to the challenges. It is not, as Labour would have us believe, a simple case of chucking a bit more money at people to fix it. These are complicated issues.
I am grateful for the wide range of Government support, including direct support for residents in the biggest welfare package in history, as far as I can tell. It includes increases in pensions, the halving of energy bills and the household support fund, which have helped a lot of people. We need to recognise that that is not sustainable. The Prime Minister is therefore right to look at reducing inflation and growing the economy. My community fundamentally needs better-paid jobs rather than subsidies. We need to make inroads into economic inactivity. I have spoken to the Department for Work and Pensions before about devolving powers to our local area to create packages that will support people into work that fits our local needs and priorities. I will see the Secretary of State about that shortly. At the very least, our new combined authority in the region should have the powers that Greater Manchester and the west midlands already have to deliver those packages. I have written to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about that recently.
The Government are supporting growth in our region. Devolution is also an opportunity to boost life chances through jobs and infrastructure. In Mansfield we still have lower-paid employment than elsewhere. Transport links to other areas for jobs and investment, and attracting new jobs in growth sectors such as clean energy and advanced manufacturing, are key. I have spoken in this place a lot about the £20 billion STEP—spherical tokamak for energy production—fusion investment as an example of huge Government investment. Our combined authority will give us the ability to wrap a local skills and education package and transport links around that, so that kids in Mansfield can have amazing opportunities that have not existed in our area for decades. North Nottinghamshire can power the country again. In turn, we can change lives. That is a powerful intervention from the Government to support people.
There are all sorts of great projects across Mansfield, Nottinghamshire and our region, including the freeport, our development company, spherical tokamak for energy production fusion, investment zones and our combined authority and transport projects. We all want bigger, quicker and better support for these projects, but they will sit under our combined authority to help us drive private sector growth and bring funding back into the Treasury, as well as create opportunities, which are important. Rather than talking about doing things, the biggest role for Government in growth is to undo some things in order to help small businesses to get on with business and reduce the regulatory burden.
It is important to clarify Opposition comments about council tax. Residents are reading national leaflets in relation to local elections and getting the impression that if they vote for Labour next week, their council tax will be frozen, which is nonsense. It is highly misleading and almost as if the Labour party is trying to dupe people into believing that. People expect local campaigners and candidates who are worthy of their trust, but in this case Labour is leading people up the garden path. It is important to get that on the record. In truth, the Labour party does not know what the policy will cost or what its impact on public services will be, because it does not understand the issues. That is what residents need to know in a week’s time when they come to vote.
We all want to tackle rising costs, grow our economy and boost opportunities. Through the covid pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and other global events, the Government have continued to support people heavily through some of the biggest welfare interventions in this country’s history. Obviously, that is not sustainable forever but the Prime Minister is right to focus on economic recovery and growth.
Rather than seeking to paint an increasingly bleak picture of Britain, as the Opposition consistently do, and acting as though everybody in our country lives in abject poverty and misery, which does not go down well with most of this country’s voters, this Government are acting to help people who are struggling with the challenges of the cost of living and to boost growth and opportunity. While Labour Members pop up all over the place, pointing fingers and without any ideas of their own, the Prime Minister and this Government are actively supporting my constituents in an unprecedented way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I want to get everybody in, which means that after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
My constituents in Bolton South East, the 38th most deprived constituency in our country, need a Government and a council that will take the necessary steps to support them through the cost of living crisis.
The record of the Government of the last 13 years is clear. They are forcing through a 5% rise in council tax this spring; real wages have been squeezed since 2010; families are poorer than our European neighbours; the chaotic mini-Budget in September 2022 added £500 a month to first time buyers’ costs; food prices in the United Kingdom are up 50% faster than elsewhere in the G7; and we have had 24 tax rises since 2019, meaning the burden on working families is now the highest in 70 years.
Then there is the record of the Conservative council in Bolton, which has been in control since 2019. It failed to even apply to the levelling-up fund and we missed out on the opportunity of £40 million in investment; the urban redevelopment of Crompton Place has been cancelled and housing development on Moor Lane has been downgraded; and Marks & Spencer, a huge employer in Bolton, has announced that it will be leaving our town as it is not feasible for it to continue because of the stalled regeneration.
Meanwhile, the Labour party has a real plan for Bolton South East and for the country at large. We will freeze council tax this year and cut energy bills, paid for through a proper windfall tax on the gas and oil giants that have made billions of pounds in profits. A Labour Government will support small businesses, paid for by an online sales tax, allowing them to lower prices for customers on the high street. Our Treasury team will reverse the Conservative decision to hand the richest 1% of pension savers a £1 billion pound handout. Those are our immediate plans.
This afternoon, we have heard many Members on the Government Benches talk about the financial credibility of a Labour Government and of the Labour party, so I want to take a little journey through time. In 2006, nine years after Labour came into power, the GDP-to-debt ratio was 40.5%. Germany’s was 66.7% and France’s was 64.6%, so we were still doing better than those two countries. In 2008, as everyone knows, there was an economic crash that started with the Lehman Brothers collapse in the USA, and there was a global recession. The then Labour Chancellor borrowed money to save our economy, and everybody knows, if they put their hand on their heart, that he did: he stopped about half a million people losing their jobs and avoided the banking crisis.
Between 1997 and 2010, we also made a record investment in health, in education and in police numbers. Some £19 billion was spent on renovating council homes that had been left in an appalling situation because of years of Conservative government. Let us have no lectures from Government Members about who is financially prudent, bearing in mind that last year their Prime Minister collapsed the entire economy.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I want to move away from the sort of tribal politics and tribal speeches that we have heard from Opposition Members. I want to talk about some inspirational people, but before I get away from partisan points, I think it is worth pointing out that 21,900 households will be £900 better off today as a result of what this Government have done.
I want to talk about the best thing about my city of Peterborough: the people of Peterborough. Last year, in the House of Commons, I brought together people from my city who I call my Peterborough heroes: people who volunteer their time to make their city a better place. I want to talk about some of those people.
I thank people from the Bretton project—people like Miriam Whittam, Rob Fisher and Erin McGuigan, who volunteer their own time to make Bretton a better place and who deserve our recognition. I thank organisations like Gladca, which has existed for 50 years in the heart of my city, supporting people and signposting them to the right services; I thank Yasmin Ilahi and Mr Mohammad Choudhary for all the work that they have done.
I thank Zillur Hussain, who gave thousands of meals to vulnerable people during the covid pandemic and who I took to Downing Street yesterday to say thank you very much. I thank people like Mr Rony Choudhury—[Interruption.] This is important. Opposition Members might not like it, but I am recognising people in my constituency: people like Rony Choudhury, the owner of the Bombay Brasserie, who did exactly the same thing. Perhaps Opposition Members do not think that those people’s contribution is worth while. I thank people like Ed Walker, who runs the charity Hope into Action, which helps prison leavers into stable accommodation. [Interruption.] I do not know why Opposition Members are chuntering from a sedentary position. These people are heroes.
I thank people like Julie Gooding and Sharon Keogh from the Care Zone, which ensures that households have decent furniture. I thank people like Cocoa Fowler, who runs the charity Food for Nought, which provides food banks with food such as soup that would otherwise have been thrown out from supermarkets and which is supporting people. I thank people like Christine Nice, who runs the WestRaven community café and helps her community. I thank people like Erin Lee and Maureen and Jeff Walters from the Thorney food bank; Steven Pettican from the Garden House; and Moez Nathu from the charity PARCA, the Peterborough Asylum and Refugee Community Association. I thank Snow and I thank Petr Torák from the charity COMPAS. I thank Bernadetta Omondi, Faustina Yang and Louise Ravenscroft, who have all helped people in my city.
Opposition Members are dismissing these people as if they do not matter. I suggest that they go into their communities, find heroes and recognise them. They should use their position as Members of Parliament to say thank you to the people who work in their community. The idea that a Labour Government would solve any of these problems, quite frankly, is just insulting.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
It does not matter how loud Government Members shout and scream, “Crisis, what crisis?”. It does not matter how many times they repeat themselves. This crisis is devastating our communities. It is killing people in our communities. Believe me: the records are there to prove it.
I am not sure whether people have seen the latest television advertisement from Age UK. A lady is sitting in her house. It is so cold that you can see her breath. She is on the phone saying, “I am really worried because I cannot afford to put the heating on. What am I going to do?”. What have we become in this country? What have we become, when that sort of thing is being broadcast on television?
There is poverty in every one of our constituencies. Families sitting around the table of a night-time—people who are working their socks off, working all sorts of hours—are not talking about GDP, RPI, CPI, the G7 or predictions about the financial situation. They are saying, “How can we afford to put the heating on? How can we afford to eat properly? How can I afford to put shoes on the bairns? How can I afford to give them the right sort of clothing for school?”. That is what people are talking about. Government Members can shout, “Crisis, what crisis?”, as loud as they want, but it is alive and kicking in our communities. The police have informed me that theft in my constituency is on the increase, but people are not stealing the normal types of goods; they are stealing to survive. A local GP demanded to see me to tell me that I needed to see how bad some of the conditions are that people have been pushed into because of the Government’s policies. It is frightening, it really is.
Food banks are a Tory invention, of course, but I must say a big thank you to the food banks in my area—Wansbeck Valley, Bedlington, Real Deal and the Biggin Box. Everyone working in them deserves great credit. However, the food banks are drying up; the people who used to donate now want to use food banks themselves. This simply cannot go on.
Child poverty is a huge issue for me. In my constituency, it has gone up by 9.5% in five years, to 35.2%. The fact that there are empty bellies and poorly shod children in this country is an absolute disgrace. We are one of the richest countries in the world; let us use it wisely.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
If wages had continued to increase at just their pre-2008 rate, workers would have been £233 a week better off last year than they are now, and that figure is expected to increase to £304 per week by 2027. There is a yawning chasm between what working people could have benefited from and what they are experiencing now. Imagine what the world would have been like if that wage rise had continued.
It is a staggering fact that average incomes will lag behind those in Poland by the end of the decade if we carry on as we are. Ours is not a poor country—we have one of the biggest economies in the world—but when so many of our citizens have to scrape from day to day just to make ends meet, we have to ask some fundamental questions about why it has gone so wrong. It seems pretty clear to me that the experiment with trickle-down economics has been conclusively proved to be a failure, that the Government can no longer be a bystander in our economic renewal, and that the economic shocks of the past 12 months could have been much more effectively mitigated.
Let us look at what is happening around the world. With his Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden is taking steps to prepare the United States for an extremely challenging future. We have nothing approaching that scale or that ambition, at least not from the Government Benches, but those of us on the Labour Benches do have ambition. We are ready to face the challenges of global competition and climate change; we are seeking to reduce our dependence on fragile international supply chains with our plans to buy, make and sell more in Britain; we will have a real go at funding the step change in home insulation that is needed for this year’s and every subsequent year’s energy bills; and we will end the chronic disease of low-paid, insecure employment.
It is pretty clear that we need to do more to improve people’s earnings in this country, and one way of doing that is to empower workers to negotiate their terms and conditions through sectoral collective bargaining. Wherever we look in the world, when trade unions are empowered to negotiate on behalf of their members, people’s earnings tend to be higher.
When I look at what my children and their generation are facing, I see their wages continuing to fall behind everyday costs, with endemic job insecurity and companies gaming the system so that they do have any rights, let alone the ability to get on and progress in their chosen fields. More and more of their wages go on meeting the basics of living, which puts into the realms of fantasy the idea that they might be able to save up for a home of their own one day, or even—heaven forbid—save for their retirement. That is not the future that I want for my children, or for anyone’s children. We have to do something to halt the country’s slide into mediocrity, where ambition is stymied before people even start because the way in which the economy is structured means that the bulk of the nation’s wealth never leaves the top rung.
We cannot go on like this, with people working harder but seeing their cash go less and less far so that it becomes a stretch even to pay for essentials, while their tax burden increases and public services continue to deteriorate. If we were still in Europe, we would be the sick man of it. We cannot keep asking people to pay more for less. Something has to change, and it should be the Government.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Families, businesses and the country are struggling. For too long, Government support has been too little and too late. During the pandemic, we would have fared much better if the health service had not had its money cut every year since the Conservatives came into Government. The energy crisis has also had a huge impact on our economy. Britain is the only major G7 economy that is still smaller than it was before the pandemic. The country is going backwards under this Government. Many families are having to fork out an extra £500 in mortgage payments following the disastrous Conservative Budget last year that crashed the country’s economy. This is real money; it is the real lives of our constituents, and people are facing real hardship. This is not an abstract statistic, yet instead of doing something to help families, the Government are cutting funding to councils. Even last year, they introduced stricter eligibility for free school meals.
I have the honour of representing a constituency that spans two councils: St Helens and Knowsley. They are wonderful places with a strong sense of community spirit, but there is no denying that the Conservative Government’s decisions have taken their toll over the past 13 years and caused real hardship. As they are the second and 22nd least well-off council areas in the country, the offer of support that is too little, too late is being felt by my constituents, particularly the vulnerable people, children and people with disabilities.
In 2010, central Government funding to St Helens was £127 million. This year, it is £11 million. In Knowsley, the second poorest council area in the country, the council’s funding has been cut by £485 per person since 2010, despite the average across the country being £188. It is the second poorest area in the country. These cuts have consequences. Local authorities have duties that they have a legal requirement to fulfil, but even with a council tax rise, services have had to be rationed in many areas. We are raising council taxes during the biggest cost of living crisis in a generation, and working people already face the highest tax burden in 70 years.
The Government should have learned their lesson by now after acting too little and too late over the pandemic and the energy crisis. Families and businesses could be crushed if the Government do not get there quickly enough with the support that is needed, but I doubt they will do it. This is real money that could be in the pockets of our constituents while the cost of the average weekly shop is skyrocketing. The Government need to cut business rates to help revitalise businesses. There is no denying that short-term support is required, but there is also a need for long-term council funding. The fair funding review has been delayed for too long. Who is benefiting? The better-off areas are benefiting at the expense of my constituents—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We need to bring in the last Back-Bench speaker.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
It is exactly 12 months since I conducted a cost of living survey in my constituency. The results were absolutely shocking, with 90% of constituents feeling worse off than in the previous 12 months, 80% struggling to pay their bills and over 80% reporting that their mental health had been impacted by the cost of living crisis. Since then, this Tory Government have done absolutely nothing to ease those pressures, and people’s situations are much worse. The cost of living crisis is a political choice.
In the brief time that I have to speak, I will focus on pay and prices. The cost of living is being driven by inflation exceeding incomes—prices are outstripping pay. Millions of people, particularly in the public sector, are having pay awards imposed on them that are below the rate of inflation, and people are being forced—yes, forced—to go on strike. The Government simply do not care. With inflation outstripping pay, month after month, there is an urgent priority for this Government to inflation-proof pay for the public sector and all workers as a short-term measure in the cost of living crisis. I will continue to stand in solidarity with trade unions seeking that outcome.
Turning to food prices, the Office for National Statistics reported last week that food prices were driving inflation. Food prices have increased 19.2% over the past year, but key staples have increased by much more. The impact of this is clear, as others have said today. Food banks in my constituency, like those everywhere else in the country, are seeing more and more people arriving for food, including at the food bank where I volunteered for more than 12 months, which has had an astronomical increase in the number of people turning up on the doorstep. This is shameful—shameful—for the Government, and it is why I have felt compelled in the last month to work with our local trades council to raise nearly £2,500 for the food bank, but we should not have to do that in the world’s fifth richest nation. It is an absolute disgrace.
Yet the supermarkets are doing very well. We hear that Tesco has paid more than £1 billion in dividend payments to shareholders when most people in this country are struggling. It is not right that supermarkets continue to make hundreds of millions of pounds in profits at the expense of ordinary households.
I finish with a quote from a constituent, “Why are the rich continuing to get richer in this country while the rest of us suffer? I do not see any point in living. Sadly, as usual, the Tories are deaf and just do not care.” I implore the Government to wake up and listen to the majority of people in this country and take urgent action to address this cost of living crisis.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
After 13 years of Conservative Government, do the people of Britain feel better off? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) put it, the answer is a resounding no. Across the country, families and individuals are seeing their bills rise while their pay packet falls, and they are faced with a Government who are only making the problem worse. We must remember that the shocking decisions made over the past year, be it the mini-Budget that crashed our economy or the pension reforms that cut taxes for the 1%, only further entrenched 13 years of failure and mismanagement.
That economic record and the Government’s failure have left the UK exposed to skyrocketing price increases. Working people are facing soaring bills, rising food prices and higher taxes. Meanwhile the Government have inflicted a Tory mortgage premium on first-time buyers that has increased costs by £500 a month for some households, forced a 5% rise in council tax this spring by reducing funding to councils, and introduced a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest 1% of pension savers by changing pension allowances. As my hon. Friends have powerfully illustrated, these decisions continue to have a devastating impact on people across the country.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) all talked about how people are worse off after 13 years of Tory Government. Even the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston) said that the cost of living crisis is the No. 1 issue on the doorstep. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) talked about how the cost of living crisis is affecting disabled people in such a cruel way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) talked about how the Welsh Government are moving heaven and earth to help constituents. This is what a difference a Labour Government make.
People who walk down a local high street today are likely to see pubs, independent shops or even bank branches shutting their doors as soaring inflation and energy bills make their businesses near impossible to run. They might go into a local supermarket and be shocked at the price tickets accompanying everyday items. The price of eggs is up by a third, the price of milk is up by a third and the price of sugar is up by 42%. And at the end of the street they might see a food bank where local people generously volunteer their time to help members of their community in need.
That is the reality of 13 years of Conservative Government. Hard-working families and individuals are struggling to make ends meet, are having to cut back to only essential spending, and are deciding whether they can afford to take their children on holiday this summer or go out for a meal with friends on their birthday. Businesses, suffering under the weight of price rises, are looking at their balance sheets and having to take incredibly difficult decisions. High streets are on the decline. The fabric of the community is breaking down. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that picture. The UK has lost 6,000 pubs, 4,000 local shops and more than 9,000 bank branches since 2010. The Government have presided over and led that managed decline, and now the UK is right at the bottom of the pack, with dismal growth forecasts and no plan to steady the ship. Instead, despite fast-rising prices, wages are stagnating while the tax burden reaches its highest point in 70 years, with 24 tax rises since 2019—I repeat: 24 tax rises since 2019.
For first-time buyers, the Tory mortgage premium has added up to £500 a month to their bills, as the Conservative mini-Budget wrecked the economy and saw interest rates rise and markets losing confidence. That first step up the ladder as people start a family and settle into the community has been put out of reach. What should be a time of excitement and joy has been reduced to one of anxiety and disappointment, and this is before we consider the impact of the many other tax rises coming down the path. Council tax bills have risen above £2,000 for the first time, with the Government forcing councils to put up rates by reducing their funding, seeing families hit with an average rise of 5.1%. Bills are landing on the doormat while parents hide their fear from their children upstairs.
That is the reality of 13 years of a Conservative Government and the time for change is now. But instead of focusing on the interests of working people, the Chancellor’s main offer has been a tax cut for some of the wealthiest pension savers. While he refuses to take action, it is clear that the British people deserve much better. What is needed is a change of direction. What is needed is a Labour Government—a Labour Government who will create good jobs across every part of the country. We will make Britain a world leader in the industries of the future and ensure that people have the skills to benefit from these opportunities. A Labour Government would today freeze council tax and cut business rates to ease the cost of living crisis, supporting businesses and consumers to thrive. That is the choice facing the country and that is why it is time for a Labour Government.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
This is a Government who will always support those who need it the most, a Government on the side of working families and a Government who are implementing generational, landmark policies to get the economy growing and ensure that everyone shares in its success. Just look at the impact of decisions made from the autumn statement 2022 onwards. It shows beyond doubt that Government support for households in 2023-24 provides low-income households with the largest benefit in cash terms and as a percentage of income. In fact, on average, households in the bottom half of income distribution will see twice the benefit of households in the top half, in cash terms. Because of the rises in tax thresholds introduced by successive Conservative Governments, for the first time ever, people in our country can earn £1,000 a month without paying a penny of tax or national insurance.
I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their contributions: my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom); and my hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Angela Richardson); for Poole (Sir Robert Syms); for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes); for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer); for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew); for Wantage (David Johnston), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler); for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) and for Peterborough (Paul Bristow). They all made salient comments about the support this Government are giving at this time when the cost of living has been rising.
As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reminded us, the best way we can help people get through a period of rising prices is by bearing down on inflation. At the same time, we are cutting debt and growing the economy, which is the best way to lift living standards. But we also know at this time that some people need additional, targeted support. In the face of cost of living headwinds, we demonstrated our values by protecting struggling families with a £2,500 energy price guarantee, one-off payments and the uprating of benefits. Aside from the measures on energy, we made changes that mean the average driver has saved about £200 in total since the 5p fuel duty cut was introduced.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Minister speaks about the support the Government have given in terms of the cost of living payment. Why is it then that, when someone has already been punished with a sanction, the Government punish them twice by not giving them the cost of living payment?
Andrew Griffith
I understand that the hon. Member and his party are not happy campers these days, but we are giving more money per head to households in Scotland than we are in the rest of the United Kingdom, which is why he should get behind the many benefits of being part of this Union. On this very day, more than 8 million families across the United Kingdom will receive in their accounts a £301 cost of living payment from the Government, and that is just the first of three payments that will be made, giving a total of £900 to low-income and vulnerable families.
One measure that touches almost everyone in this country is childcare. In the Budget, we on the Conservative Benches confirmed the biggest expansion of free childcare in living memory. Our new offer will close the gap between parental leave ending and the current childcare offer. It will reduce costs for parents who can get back to work and make sure that a career break does not become a career end. It will improve the lives of millions of people. It is the right thing to do, but we can only afford to do that because of the fiscal discipline that we have exercised.
I am delighted that, as people go to the polls next week, the Opposition have given them a reminder of where they stand, for which I am grateful. Conservative councils charge £80 a year less than Labour on a band E property. Under the last Labour Government, council tax doubled. Under Labour Wales, it has more than trebled. Not for the first time, Labour says one thing and does another. Its motion today calls for a council tax freeze, and yet, far from freezing, I looked at the increases in every one of the constituencies of those on the Opposition Front Bench: Leeds up 5%; Wolverhampton up 5%; Camden up 5%; Ealing up 5%; Greenwich up 5%. A full house of Labour councils charging the maximum that they are allowed in council tax.
Enough, Madam Deputy Speaker: enough of the Opposition giving us rhetoric not record; enough of the economic illiteracy from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen; and enough of these ChatGPT-does-socialism-type speeches that we have heard this afternoon. We should never forget Labour’s record on the economy: working people and your children pay the price. Labour has ditched its rule not to borrow to fund day-to-day spending, so we know its plan to stick billions on the nation’s credit card. [Interruption.] Labour Members can intervene if I am incorrect. No Labour Government have ever left office with unemployment lower than when they came to power. Under the last Labour Government, unemployment rose from 2.1 million in 1997 to 2.5 million by the time they left office in 2010—more people denied the security and the chance in life of a good job.
Finally, let us never forget, when Labour left office in 2010, how the then Chief Secretary wrote—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] What did he write? He wrote:
“Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid there’s no money left.”
We are a Government focused on delivering the British people’s priorities. We are making sure that we are helping those in financial strain. We are focused on the future and we are delivering not just for growth that comes when a country emerges from a downturn, but for long-term sustainable healthy growth.
Since the Conservative Government came into power in 2010, we have grown more than major economies such as France, Italy or Japan and around the same as Europe’s largest economy, Germany. We have halved unemployment. We have cut inequality and reduced the number of workless households left to us by 1 million. Output is now higher than pre-pandemic levels. There is still much to do, but we are on track to deliver—
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, I will take motions 3 and 4 together.
Delegated Legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Companies
That the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Definition of Foreign Limited Partner, Protection and Rectification) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts
That the draft Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data in relation to Non-Crime Hate Incidents, which was laid before this House on 13 March, be approved.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Question agreed to.
Sittings in Westminster Hall (2 and 9 May)
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 10(2)(b)—
(a) the sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 2 May shall begin at 3.30pm and may continue for up to three hours; and
(b) the sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 9 May shall begin at 11.30am, shall be suspended from 1.30pm to 4.30pm, and may then continue for up to a further three hours.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
City Centre Security Measures and Access for Disabled People
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to have been granted the opportunity to have this debate. The centre of York is a special place. It is one that my community really values, with its amenities and services, its heritage and its friendships. Imagine someone being told that they are no longer allowed entrance. Why? Because they are a disabled person. Disabled not by the debilitative impairment that they have learned to live with, but “dis-abled” because the new security barriers prevent them using the blue badge access on which they depend. For some, alternatives may be found, but if their vehicle is their only means of transport and Motability alternatives do not work for them—or if it is where they store their medicines or equipment, such as a nebuliser, or it is their safe space—then being denied entry takes away their human rights and dignity.
We had these debates decades ago, resulting in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We understand the social model of disability, which is about the barriers—in this case, literally barriers—that prevent people from living their life without detriment. People are now locked out of their city not because they have an impairment, but because of intransigence within the local authority or authoritarians within it not recognising their basic human rights. As if life was not hard enough already, that one moment in the week when they go to the bank or post office, meet a friend for a coffee, or go to church or the cinema is now forbidden. Even the St Sampson’s centre, a specialist social space for older people, is cordoned off. It is discrimination.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent opening to her speech. Does she agree that a local authority seeking to ban disabled people from being able to access the centre of York amounts, pure and simple, to direct discrimination? It is a breach of their civil and human rights, and if the local authority were to rethink this, it would lift that ban and remove the barriers so that disabled people can freely access the city within which they live.
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so powerfully, because this is an infringement of somebody’s rights and it is discrimination.
While the UN General Assembly and special rapporteur say that human rights and security are not in conflict, but complement each other, those with a poor knowledge of human rights have set them against each other. Tonight, I want to set the scene in York and say what the Government need to do to uphold human rights while strengthening security, as Labour would.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I commend the hon. Lady, who in her time in this House has been an assiduous and dedicated MP? I think her constituents should be very proud of her actions, and indeed of what she is doing here tonight.
Does the hon. Lady not agree that, while we have come on in leaps and bounds in improving disabled access and taking action to legislate for disabled people, there is a need for greater awareness of disability needs? She has outlined this specific case, which I believe shows discrimination and bias. I hope that the Government and the Minister, who I believe are responsive and sympathetic to what the hon. Lady is saying, will act to ensure that she gets what she needs on behalf of her constituents.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention. We should not have to be having this debate here tonight, but we are, and we are determined to see the ban reversed.
Nice and Berlin witnessed hostile vehicle terrorism in 2016 and Barcelona, Westminster and others in 2017—we will never forget—so, following discussions, the police, the counter-terrorism unit and what is now the National Protective Security Authority believed that York needed protections. The minster was the first out of the blocks, as blocks were literally put around that magnificent cathedral to prevent vehicle incursion. Discussions also suggested that some thoroughfares might present a risk and needed further mitigation. Years passed and nothing happened, so clearly urgency was not apparent. In June 2020, barriers suddenly appeared without any consultation. That was due not to terrorist threats, but to covid and the need for social distancing. No one talked to disabled people. They were locked out by section 18 of the Traffic Order Procedure (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020, which provided for a temporary ban for blue badge holders. We were then told by Green party councillors that it was because that was better for the environment, as if disabled people caused climate change and did not also want to save the planet. Then the barriers were for street cafés, to aid covid recovery, as opposed to ensuring that disabled people could spend their “purple pound” in York.
In November 2021, the Liberal Democrat-led City of York Council applied under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for a traffic regulation order, under which a counter-terrorism jurisdiction must
“avoid danger to persons or other traffic using the road.”
Any jurisdiction with any sense would recognise that protecting the environment, the economy, safety and blue badge holder access are not mutually exclusive things, but are complementary. If security was genuinely such an issue, what about all the other inconsistencies, such as the patchwork CCTV, with some cameras switched off, or the commercial vehicle access available when barriers are in place? Why can bollards simply be lifted out of their portals at any time, and why do bin vans sit with engines running? Why do the barriers lift at 5 pm when the streets are crowded, while at 10.30 am, when it is quiet, those barriers are down? I am not questioning the threat; I am questioning the logic.
Before a traffic regulation order is made, a council must comply with statutory requirements set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. Those include a requirement for formal consultation and advertisement, which the council undertook in a short summer consultation period in 2021. More than 200 objections were registered. The local government and social care ombudsman responded, saying that York’s council had failed to respond to the consultation. Instead, the council argued that because 60% of disabled people had responded in support of the plans, that was sufficient to implement them. Not all respondents lived in York, and the nature of their impairment was not clear. Rather than exploring what mitigation the 40% required, the authority homogenised disabled people. Human rights law makes it clear that majority preferences cannot simply override those of minority groups. In December 2021, The Department for Transport’s best practice guide, “Inclusive Mobility”, was published, but those criteria were not met either. We must take a holistic approach to protecting people, not just through hostile vehicle mitigation, but from damaging infringement on human rights.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. As a neighbouring MP, I support every point she has put forward. She is right to raise the point about the social isolation this is causing for people with disabilities who need access to our great city and its centre. Does she agree that there is also huge discrimination against rural communities? People from those communities with blue badges who need access to the city centre cannot access it at the moment because they do not have the required public transport. A lot of small rural communities are being left behind because of this policy.
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that disabled people are more likely to experience loneliness—13% more likely—and because York is both urban and rural, the people living in communities in his constituency will also experience detriment. As we look across York, we know that security risks need to be addressed, but so do people’s human rights.
We live in a troubled world. Risks present themselves every day around the globe and here at home, and we must do all we can to keep our communities safe. There is no point in saying “if only” at the inquest when we had the chance to rechart the course of history. I understand risk and I want my city to be safe for all who enter. Mitigation must be proportionate and effective. But let us be clear: disabled people are not terrorists, yet they are the ones being excluded.
Imagine a sign saying “No disabled people”. Yet that is what York has sunk to: denying dignity to the 60-plus people who every day depend on their blue badge to access the city. My plea to the Minister is that blue badge holders need his help. In York, the council is clearly out of its depth. Some places have got this right and others horribly wrong. This is a very specialist area of policy, and central Government need to provide the specialism that localities do not have.
Barricades around our ancient city are nothing new. The centre already has the world-renowned wall, which makes for an enjoyable walk for those who can access it. There are 8 million visitors a year and just over 200,000 people living in York, and 34,592 residents identified as a disabled person in the 2021 census and around 7,000 have been issued with a blue badge, granting access and parking to reach shops, services, open spaces and entertainment across our city centre and beyond.
We have a heavy responsibility to ensure safety, but also to ensure that disabled people are not denied their rights. The latter has been poorly understood. A Labour Government would ensure that every town and city is safe and secure, and reverse the ban in York. I have been talking to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), who says that it does not have to be this way. Access for blue badge holders has been facilitated there, overcoming the very issues that York has railed to grasp. Chester, the first British city to win the coveted European access city award for balancing safety and access, provides for access at barriers, which close only when risk is identified. Essential businesses and blue badge residents are on the list for access, and even visitors can apply in advance. Its infrastructure provides safety and access, and Chester understands the importance of involving and working with disabled people in planning.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about Chester. I have to ask why on earth City of York Council has not followed Cheshire West and Chester Council’s excellent example in this matter. Our city centre scheme has been worked on since late 2017. At every single step of the way, my council’s fantastic officers have worked assiduously with the access officer, the equalities team and, most importantly, disabled people themselves to accommodate their needs while balancing the imperatives of the wider security environment. The council has the powers, but uses them extremely sparingly. Indeed, they have been activated only three times. This measure should not be used as a barrier to disabled people leading their day-to-day lives.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. Inclusion is about the co-production of outcomes. Chester is able, but the Liberal Democrat York administration has failed to commit to measures and is therefore barring disabled people from being able to access their city.
Turning to the law, I am grateful to the world-leading Centre for Applied Human Rights at the University of York, which produced an outstanding report, and to the Reverse the Ban campaign to provide access to disabled people. The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, a human rights treaty, binds national and local jurisdictions, stating:
“Disabled people must never be treated less favourably than others, excluded from or denied access to services, education, work or social life on the basis of their disability.”
and must have access
“on an equal basis to non-disabled people”.
Further, it states that
“Disabled people’s full and effective participation and inclusion in society must be supported”.
With the combination of the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998, the rights of disabled people cannot be dismissed. Disabled people, under articles 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Act, have a right to participate in essential economic, social, cultural and leisure activities. Any limitations for security must be proportionate and inclusive. The Equality Act 2010 is even more relevant as it places a duty on public authorities to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people to exercise their rights and to
“advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic, and those who do not.”
Case law clarifies that public authorities must have due regard for the impact on elderly and disabled people when imposing parking restrictions. York fails that test. There were two equality impact assessments. The first, in June 2020, said that there was no infringement on human rights, yet it recognised that blue badge holders would be barred from the city. In November 2020 there was recognition of the breach, but no mitigation and no compelling reason for justification.
Removing the ability to drive and park in the streets will increase the distance that people with reduced mobility have to travel. They will be locked out of their city. Above all, under the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, the Government must ensure that the built environment is usable by disabled people on an equal basis to others. I recognise that that is difficult, but rather than the authorities making mistakes akin to York’s, the Government must intervene and assist.
First, funding is key to making places accessible. Infrastructure is not cheap, and project costs invariably spiral. We need Government funding and backing to support local authorities at risk. Secondly, security risks change, so continuous support must be available. A central unit of expertise that works with local partners with a strong understanding of security and the impact on human rights is essential. York needs an integrated security audit and plan, and the Government should assist it.
Thirdly, disabled people must be involved in the design of any consultation and subsequent mitigation measures. City of York Council ran three consultations, including one focused on disabled people and representative groups. In addition to wider infrastructure enhancements, public transport and information, it recognised the rights of disabled people. York then ignored them. Fourthly, there is a clear need for co-production of hostile vehicle mitigation measures, ensuring that safety and human rights obligations are met. Solving conflicts together produces stronger outcomes.
I believe that York must stop digging in and start listening, like Chester. Here is my proposal. Blue badges are identified to a person, not a vehicle. At barrier entry points, they can be shown to security personnel or a camera. Additional security—a password, identification or a QR code—could act as secondary security. That is a tried and tested method when operating security zones. Visitors will have to pre-register, but that is not arduous. It is simple, safe and secure, and it protects the city and human rights. York’s plans will deny access to disabled people between 10:30 am and 5 pm. Many disabled people find mornings difficult, and by 5 pm the shops and amenities will be closed. It is simply shameful that blue badge holders are locked out. The council executives should hang their heads in disgrace.
A Labour Government would not tolerate that and would reverse the ban. The Minister needs to intervene urgently with his expertise to keep people safe and enable people to be dignified in their city. I want him to work with me, halt the engineering works that commenced yesterday at a cost of £3.5 million to local people, and provide oversight, as York’s safety and access is of national concern. Getting it right in York will set a blueprint for elsewhere. Labour has already forced the administration to appoint an access officer and set up an access forum, but due to the abysmal record of the authority on equalities, I argue that an equality scrutiny committee needs to be established, so that all the authority’s work is examined and non-discriminatory mitigation is put in place.
My sincere thanks go to the 27 organisations representing disabled people, older people and allied and related organisations campaigning to reverse the ban, and to Flick Williams, who is a tour de force when speaking on behalf of disabled people to secure their human rights. The embarrassment is that York became the UK’s first UNESCO human rights city in 2017. This year it holds the prestigious international chair for human rights cities. My well-researched proposal would remedy the council’s shaming of York. I ask the Minister to intervene and to join me not only to immediately reverse the ban but to strengthen security and access, so we can all live safely and with dignity.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a chance at the ballot box? I believe that York has local elections. Would she encourage the residents of York to make their views on this matter known to the various candidates?
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and, of course, this is a big issue for our city. It is imperative that people seriously consider where they put their crosses on 4 May, as that provides an opportunity to reverse the ban. If the Lib Dem-Green council will not reverse the ban, clearly the people of York must speak.
I close with the words of Dame Judi Dench:
“York city centre is a rare jewel that should be free for all to enjoy, including those with a disability and for whom accessible parking is essential… I should like to offer my wholehearted support to people in the City of York”.
I ask the Minister to offer his support too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I start by conveying my sincere appreciation to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for calling the debate and for speaking so powerfully on behalf of her constituents, especially those who have been adversely affected by the installation of bollards, the removal of blue badge parking in York city centre and the many other issues she highlighted.
I thank the hon. Members for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord), for their contributions to the debate. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), who is no longer in his place, for his contribution. I know he has similarly strong views to those articulated by the hon. Member for York Central. Both the hon. Members who represent the city of York are committed champions of the residents and businesses that call York home, and I know they share our ambition for that fine city, in the heart of the northern powerhouse, to continue to grow and flourish in the long term.
York attracts over 8 million tourists from home and abroad every year. We know the visitor economy is vital for the city, but it also causes the types of questions, challenges, trade-offs and considerations that the hon. Lady so eloquently espoused in her speech. An appropriate balance clearly needs to be struck, so in my response I want to provide clarity about the Government’s role and responsibility, while outlining some of the work around accessibility for disabled residents in York, and indeed in all our towns and cities.
First, I will talk about the UK shared prosperity funding, from which some money has been contributed to the work that has been discussed. I will then talk about accessibility and finally about blue badge parking.
As the hon. Lady will know, appreciate and accept, empowering places to identify and build on their own strengths and needs is a core tenet of the levelling-up agenda, which is why the UK shared prosperity fund is giving York £5 million. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that improving infrastructure costs money and takes time. The fund will help neighbourhoods and create more high-skilled, high-wage jobs of the future.
As the hon. Lady outlined, clear concerns have been expressed about the changes that have made to some of the projects, including the perceived heavy handed use of bollards that restrict accessibility for people in wheelchairs. In rolling out the UK shared prosperity fund, we have been clear that we want to give local areas the maximum amount of local discretion. The essence of devolution is affording local areas the freedom to forge their own path, but with rights come responsibilities.
The hon. Lady has expounded the concerns that she and many others have about the course of action that has been outlined so far by City of York Council. The Government have always been unequivocal in saying that our high streets must be open and accessible to everyone. Local authorities have a duty, under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to exercise their functions in securing the
“expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic.”
Although councils are ultimately free to make their own decisions about the streets under their care, they need to take into account the relevant legislation. They are also responsible for ensuring that their actions are within the law. They are accountable to local people for their decisions, and indeed for their performance. There is no specific requirement for local authorities to use bollards; it is for each council to decide the most appropriate way to resolve these challenges.
Blue badge parking is a similar case. I know that the hon. Lady has been a champion of reversing the ban on blue badge parking since it was introduced in the city’s pedestrian zones as part of the measures introduced in 2021. I appreciate that the resident-led campaign has won the support of others, including Dame Judi Dench, as the hon. Lady outlined in her conclusion.
The blue badge scheme is a lifeline for many disabled people. It helps approximately 2.5 million people in England to remain independent, while preventing social isolation. The Department for Transport has published several documents and some non-statutory guidance for councils on how the scheme should operate. One such document, as the hon. Lady outlined, is “Inclusive Mobility: A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure”, which sets out the provision that should be made for parking spaces. It states:
“Creating and maintaining an accessible public realm is crucial for ensuring that disabled people are not excluded from playing a full role in society… Inclusive design requires that the needs of all disabled people are considered from the outset of any transport and pedestrian infrastructure”.
Personally, I would strongly encourage the city of York to think carefully about reconciling the understandable challenges with which it has to grapple, which we all recognise—the hon. Lady was careful to articulate and highlight them in her speech—with an approach that meets the rights of disabled people in the way she outlined. There is always a balance to be struck between protecting the public and not unduly imposing on the rights and freedoms of disabled residents, blue badge holders or the wider public who need to park in the city for essential reasons.
Marsha De Cordova
In my opinion, City of York Council is clearly breaching the law. It does not even seem to be complying with its responsibilities under the public sector equality duty. Is there scope for the Government to intervene to instruct or encourage the council to reverse the ban?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful for that question, which goes back to my point that ultimately central Government have to recognise, if we believe in devolution, that local councils must have the aegis and the space to make decisions. However, councils must make those decisions in accordance with the law, must have regard to regulation, and must think carefully about the impact and implications of their decisions in the way the hon. Member for York Central outlined. The fact that the subject had to be raised in this place tonight is indicative of the level of concern that has been expressed on both sides of the House about the challenges facing the city of York.
I have to respect the devolution settlement. I have to recognise that, ultimately, it is right that decisions are made locally. Local government does fantastic things across the country on a daily basis, and we should congratulate it and thank it for doing so. Nevertheless, I hope that the city of York is listening tonight, that it has heard the concerns and comments that have been articulated, and that it will consider very carefully how to approach the matter in future.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Hunger: East Africa and the Horn of Africa
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered hunger in the East and Horn of Africa.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir James.
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I am not Sir James—I am Mr Gray. Unless the hon. Gentleman knows something I don’t, “Mr” is fine.
Patrick Grady
Well, that must be rectified in the near future, Mr Gray. [Laughter.] It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, especially given your family’s heritage in Glasgow North. I am grateful to all the Members who have come today and to all those who sponsored the bid at the Backbench Business Committee—not all of them are able to be present, but I am grateful for the cross-party support for the debate.
The Backbench Business Committee has granted 90 minutes for this debate. Hunger and malnutrition kill people in the east and horn of Africa at the rate of one person every 36 seconds. In the time we have for today’s debate, 150 people in the region will lose their lives because their basic right to food has been denied them for entirely preventable reasons. One of the most important things we can do today is make sure that this scandal no longer goes unnoticed.
Christian Aid’s research has found that only 23% of the UK public are aware of the hunger crisis in the horn of Africa, compared with 91% who say they are aware of the crisis in Ukraine. The presence of so many Members here today, the correspondence we have received from constituents and the discussions we have had with those who have come to see us at our surgeries or at the mass lobby in February sponsored by the right hon. Members for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), show that when members of the public do develop an awareness and understanding of the situation, they demand urgent action to deal with the acute crisis on the ground and long-term action to build resilience and prevent future crises.
Countries in the horn and east of Africa, including Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, South Sudan and Eritrea, are entering their sixth consecutive season of below-average rainfall. The worsening food security situation also extends to Djibouti and Uganda. The World Health Organisation estimates that around 46 million people in the region currently face what the integrated food security phase classification system describes as crisis levels or worse, meaning households have
“food consumption gaps that are reflected by high or above-usual acute malnutrition”.
Within that number, many now face catastrophe or famine levels where there is
“an extreme lack of food and/or other basic needs… Starvation, death, destitution and extremely critical acute malnutrition are evident.”
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. In February I visited Turkana county in Kenya with the Tearfund charity and I saw the devastating consequences of four years of no rain at all. To tackle the famine in 2017 the UK Government contributed £900 million. So far in the current crisis we have contributed £156 million. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to do much more?
Patrick Grady
The right hon. Member is exactly right, and I think that key theme will emerge throughout the debate.
On Friday there was a virtual roundtable of aid and development agencies that work in the region, and those of us present heard directly from representatives of Tearfund, among other aid agencies, in Kenya, Somalia and South Sudan, who described the reality of the situation on the ground. We heard from Manenji, who works with Oxfam in South Sudan, about the dead livestock that robs families and communities of their sources of income. We heard from Alec, who works with World Vision in Somalia, about the children who are losing out on education because their families have been displaced. We heard from John, who works with Action contra la Faim in Kenya, about how diseases such as cholera spread because there is inadequate sanitation. And we heard from Catherine, who works with the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, also in Kenya, who explained that some rains are arriving, but in quantities that are causing floods and damaging crops even further. Those extremes of weather are further exacerbating the situation—that was perhaps the clearest message from all those who contributed.
The hunger crisis is a climate crisis, and weather patterns have changed beyond all recognition, exactly as the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) said, becoming more extreme and less predictable. All the evidence shows that that is a result of pollution and carbon emissions pumped into the atmosphere by decades of past and ongoing industrial and commercial human activity in parts of the world that are not experiencing such extremes, or at least not experiencing their devastating consequences—in other words, so-called developed, western countries. The people who are most affected by climate change are those who have done least to cause it. That is the basic principle of climate justice, which is a concept, like that of climate emergency, that the UK Government do not appear to be willing to accept, let alone embrace or act on.
Other important structural causes have led to the hunger crisis, but they are also the result of decisions and actions taken by people—often by Governments—so they can be changed by making different decisions and taking different actions. The crisis in Ukraine has led to food price inflation around the world. In the UK, we have experienced inflation rates of about 10%, which has caused great and undeniable hardship to many of our constituents and among the poorest and most vulnerable in society. On Friday, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund told us about the effects of the inflation rate in Ethiopia, which is 30% and which affects people who are already trying to get by on the most basic of incomes and subsistence lifestyles.
Difficulties in ensuring the physical supply of grain, even grain delivered in the form of food aid, have also had a significant impact on the hunger crisis, which is why it was encouraging to hear from British International Investment about its investment in Somaliland to improve capacity at the port of Berbera.
The conflicts across the region compound the food crisis and begin to lead to a spiral, becoming both a cause and an effect of hunger. That has been particularly evident in Ethiopia in recent months. Decades of oppression in Eritrea, as we heard from Eritrea Focus, mean that information on the food security situation in that country is almost non-existent, although we can extrapolate from what is happening elsewhere. In recent days, the escalation of violence in Sudan has become a huge concern to us all, and the withdrawal of many aid agencies will simply drive more people to starvation. We must hope that the attention now being paid to what is happening in Sudan leads to long-term resolutions with respect to conflict and to food and nutrition systems.
In all this, gender is a critical factor. ActionAid has spoken of the importance of supporting women-headed households and the role that women play as key leaders in their communities, but they are also at risk of violence and exploitation; indeed, Tearfund referred in particular to child marriage, early pregnancy and prostitution. However, all those challenges are entirely the result of decisions and actions taken by individuals or Governments. There is nothing inevitable about the food crisis, and the stories we have heard, as well as the ones we are likely to hear during the debate, will demonstrate that. The crisis was entirely preventable, and it is eminently resolvable. Future crises are equally avoidable.
The UK Government and the international community need to take urgent action to respond to the acute emergency and to build resilience against further emergencies. First, the UK Government must simply up their game. The risks and dangers that were warned about when the Department for International Development was abolished and the aid budget cut are becoming a reality. As the right hon. Member for East Ham said, in 2017 the UK Government were able to provide more than £800 million to east Africa, which helped to stave off many of the worst impacts of looming famine and saved thousands of lives. There have been warnings about this crisis since 2020, but in the last financial year the UK’s contribution was just £156 million—a cut of 80% from what was made available last time round. That is completely disproportionate with respect to the overall cut in the aid budget.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I, too, visited Kenya earlier this year with Oxfam and the Coalition for Global Prosperity, and we could see the effects of famine. On the point about the finance and support for aid, does the hon. Member agree that it is about not just the amount of aid, but where it goes and how important it is that UK aid is channelled to local providers on the ground to provide emergency relief? Local organisations will have a better idea and a clearer system when it comes to where the funds should go and who actually needs them, whereas a multinational or even national organisation will not necessarily send them to the people who need them.
Patrick Grady
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That becomes even more important when the budget is squeezed. A local response and grassroots knowledge are absolutely critical in responding and building infrastructure. We heard that from the agencies, and I will reflect a little on that before the end of my contribution.
I think we will all welcome the announcement by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs of a high-level pledging conference in New York on 24 May and the role the UK Government will play as a co-host. If the Government want to be taken seriously, they must lead by example. We will need not just announcements, but disbursements of scaled-up aid that will encourage other countries to do the same. There are already questions about exactly when and how the UK will disburse the pledge of £1.5 billion to the Nutrition for Growth fund. I know that Lord Oates, in another place, is paying particular attention to that through his United Against Hunger and Malnutrition initiative.
As the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) said, how aid funds are spent makes a big difference to both immediate response and resilience building. We will all have heard from non-governmental organisations on the ground about the importance of locally led interventions and that grassroots, community-based organisations are almost always best placed to know exactly what support is needed to help people in their area.
Aid in the form of cash transfers and social security empowers and dignifies individuals, even in the most difficult circumstances. Ensuring that children can continue to go to school and receive a meal while they are at school is perhaps one of the best examples of both meeting immediate need and investing in the future. Refugees International highlighted a study by the United States Agency for International Development that demonstrates that
“a more proactive response to avert humanitarian crises could reduce the cost to international donors by 30%, whilst also protecting billions of dollars of income and assets for those most affected.”
I am delighted to see that the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), is with us today. The Committee’s report on food security is tagged to the debate on the Order Paper, and it recommends that the Government work to
“empower the Global Alliance for Food Security to develop international solutions to regional food security challenges.”
The report spoke particularly about the pivotal role of sustainable, smallholder farming and agriculture, undoubtedly based on exactly the kind of excellent evidence from organisations on the ground that have provided background briefing for today’s debate.
Given what is happening in Sudan, it is understandable that the Minister for Development cannot be here in person. He has taken a strong interest in this issue, and he and other Ministers have spoken about how they need and want to make the reduced aid budget as effective as possible. I think he feels the pain of many of us in Parliament and beyond who know and understand the importance of international development at the damage done to the aid budget, to the painstaking cross-party consensus built up around it and to the reputation the UK earned as a result. He might even look a little enviously at the vision outlined by the SNP for an independent Scotland, where 0.7% of GNI is a floor, not a ceiling, for aid spending. As Ministers say and we know, for now the reduced funds must be made to work smarter and harder.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk at length about the application of the resources that are available at the moment. Does he agree that the extraction of clean, drinkable water in much of Africa is part of the problem and that more could and should be done to assist NGOs and other groups? Their expertise in that aspect would do much to transform the horn and central Africa.
Patrick Grady
Yes, absolutely. I am wearing the Scotland-Malawi tartan tie today. In Malawi, a common phrase is “water is life”, and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for water, sanitation and hygiene, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), is with us today as well. Water is absolutely crucial in all this, and even more important than access to food in some ways—a human being can survive for many days without food, but for barely any time at all without clean, safe water. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
That goes back to how we make the limited resources we have work effectively. That is particularly difficult to do when official development assistance funds are being spent by the Home Office. If the Home Secretary does not want people to come here on small boats from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan or Somalia, rather than spend taxpayers’ money on housing people in hotels or trying to deport them to Rwanda, we should spend it wisely and effectively on avoiding conflicts and ensuring that there is food security in the first place. People would then perhaps be less likely to flee their home countries. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
There was wide cross-party support for this debate to be granted time by the Backbench Business Committee, and that is evident from the number of Members present and the interventions so far. Many of those hoping to contribute have had the privilege of visiting countries in the horn of Africa in recent months, and I look forward to hearing their testimonies. We all represent constituents who are passionate about achieving global justice and ending hunger—entirely preventable, totally unnecessary hunger—once and for all. Action is needed now, otherwise we will be back here again. The costs in terms of money and, more importantly, human lives will only be higher.
James Gray (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that we have 40 minutes and eight speakers. Taking roughly five minutes each would be a courtesy. I call Sir Gavin Williamson.
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this debate on an incredibly important issue. Sadly, in terms of how much it has been talked about, this is largely a silent tragedy from the west’s perspective, but it is a tragedy that we could all see coming. I will direct most of my comments towards the horn of Africa, Somaliland and Somalia. This time last year, it was already clear, after numerous years without the rainfall that was hoped for and expected, that the coming year would be critical. We did not see the quantity of rain required, and the consequences affected many people.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North rightly touched on the war in Ukraine, which has had an enormous and devastating impact on so many of these countries, and he talked about the impact on prices for people living in them. The statistics from Somaliland and Somalia show that, as of October 2022, the price of a kilogram of rice had more than doubled, from 75 cents to $2. Similarly, the price of three litres of cooking oil rose from $4.50 to $9. That has an impact on every single person right across Somaliland, Somalia and all the other countries in east Africa.
The response is not just about what we can do to facilitate more grain coming from Ukraine into the horn of Africa; it is also about the direct help that we can totally control. That is about delivering aid and support into those countries today. I understand that the Department has difficult choices, and I think everyone here would totally endorse the support it is giving to Ukraine and would encourage the Government to continue that, but this cannot be an either/or decision. People need help and support in Somaliland, Somalia, Kenya and so many other areas.
Alexander Stafford
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be easier for the UK to send aid to Somaliland if it were an independent country, so that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office could work with the Somaliland Government to get aid directly to the people who need it?
Sir Gavin Williamson
We see real challenges with aid being channelled through Mogadishu, rather than going directly into Hargeisa. As has touched on that, there are amazing port facilities in Berbera that can be used as a base to deliver aid across east Africa and the horn of Africa. British Government recognition of Somaliland, and making sure that the aid goes directly to the people of Somaliland, rather than being used as a political tool by Somalia, would certainly be of great assistance to the millions of people in Somaliland and to those hundreds of thousands of people who are facing real hunger and real challenges. The hon. Member for Glasgow North was right that more needs to be done, with urgency and immediacy.
In 2011 and 2017, Britain rightly took the lead. We created the framework that enabled other countries and nations to rally behind us and support people in dire need. Although good work is ongoing, the scale and urgency need to be stepped up. We need to be there.
We are the penholder in Somalia and Somaliland. We are recognised across the world as a nation that can make a difference, as we did in the crises of 2011 and 2017. Now is the time to step up again, which means more resources, more leadership and taking the bull by the horns to really drive the issue forward.
For a relatively small increase in support, we can save hundreds of thousands of lives. I think all our constituents want Britain to be the country that leads and demonstrates our ability to make a difference and to save lives. I encourage the Minister to take that message and, most importantly, to take action to do that.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for securing this important debate. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am also chair of the all-party parliamentary group for water, sanitation and hygiene.
I lived in Kenya for four years, and I know that the connections between this country and east Africa go very deep. I hardly meet any group of people without finding someone with an east Africa connection.
British people care, enormously, which is shown by the huge, generous support for recent aid requests, the strength of feeling about suffering and the feeling that British people want to help. But the east Africa food crisis has gone relatively unreported, and is not being raised as much as it should be, and so I am grateful that we are holding this debate.
This is the worst humanitarian crisis in 40 years. More than 50 million people have been pushed to acute food insecurity, and a person dies every six seconds in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya—it is hard to get our heads around these figures, and the desperation. This is a perfect storm of climate change, with five successive rainy season failures and a likely sixth one, right now; conflict; disease outbreaks; the cost of living crisis; a reduction in aid; and countries saddled with unpayable levels of debt. Undoubtedly, it is political decisions that have led to this crisis.
About 22.7 million people across Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia face high levels of food insecurity—desperate hunger—compared with 18.6 million last August. That is an increase of 4 million people in the past six months, which shows how severe the drought has been.
The crisis is chronically underfunded—the overall funding requirements stand at about $5.1 billion for Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia—and that underfunding is unsustainable. Implementing partners are having to stop projects and suspend or reduce lifesaving programmes due to underfunding at this critical time.
As always, women and girls are affected the most—they are on the frontline. They suffer higher risks of malnutrition and violence, and there is increased child and forced marriage.
Verity is an aid worker from CAFOD, who reported from a recent visit to northern Kenya:
“Returning from Marsabit, the situation is desperate and deteriorating. I was shocked by the scale of livestock deaths, asset loss and clear desperation of communities. I was struck by the huge numbers of dead animals—mostly camels; the cattle are long gone. The landscape and roadsides are littered with carcasses, some are skeletons, some have fallen only hours before. The condition of any remaining animals is extremely poor…
There is no grazing—the assessments rate the availability of pasture in Marsabit as ‘extreme’—in many places it looks like the surface of the moon. Endless rock and dust—not a blade of grass… In towns there is no land available so groups are scattered, there is little water and little assistance. The households we spoke to had driven away their last remaining camels into the bush as they knew they would die and they would not be able to move the bodies if they died near the homestead. People are dignified but desperate…you can sense fear. People are talking of death.”
Aid agencies have for months been calling for the UK to increase aid to the region by £70 million, but this has not happened. Where is our aid money going instead? It has been drastically cut, skewed towards trade and spent on propping up the failing Home Office. The International Development Committee’s recent report, “Aid spending in the UK”, was very illuminating. For a start, the facts about aid spending were hard to find. The Committee found that it was not transparent and that recent answers from the Minister were “wilfully opaque”. The report said:
“The proportion of aid spent in the UK has drastically increased in recent years, while programmes supporting people in the world’s poorest countries were cut”,
which goes to the heart of this matter. The report also said:
“In 2021, the most recent year for which data are available, the Government spent more than £1 billion of the aid budget on in-country refugee costs”
in the UK, including hotels.
It is a crazy situation. There are fantastic young people—from Ethiopia, for example—travelling here who did not want to leave their country, but the money is being spent on hotel costs, instead of on helping them to stay in Ethiopia and support their own country, which is where they want to be. Save the Children has estimated that the cost of spending in the UK could be as high a £4.5 billion in 2022-23, accounting for one third of the entire aid budget. It is just extraordinary. Water and sanitation programmes have been cut by 80%, which does not match what British people want their aid to be spent on. In the last financial year, the UK pledged only £156 million to the crisis, which is less than a fifth of the £861 million provided in 2017-18.
To conclude, I ask the Minister to urgently commit to release already-pledged funding, to invest in and support communities and primary healthcare, to cut the debt, to transform the UK’s agriculture portfolio towards local, diverse food systems, to fund water and sanitation projects as an emergency response, and to introduce clear targets to increase funds reaching local organisations, rather than just through multilateral organisations. The climate emergency is very real. I hope that both the media and Ministers are listening to this debate today, and that urgent action will be taken to save lives.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Mr Gray. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for securing this important debate.
It is sometimes argued that the public can focus on only one crisis at a time. I do not share that cynicism, but with the horrors of a European war now beamed into our homes on a daily basis, and energy and food prices stretching the resources of many households, the temptation—even among the most conscientious of world citizens—is to turn one’s eyes away from the suffering of the wider world. Events, however, do not stop when we refuse to look at them. Among their other merits, debates such as this serve to push back against forces of apathy, and they help us to challenge criticisms of aid as being indulgent, misdirected and ineffective.
Sadly, crises of drought, famine and conflict are too prevalent across east Africa and the horn of Africa. I will focus my comments on Ethiopia, which has significant influence as one of the largest countries in the region, but also because it holds much of east Africa’s water resource, including the dam at the source of the Blue Nile, which flows into Egypt. Ethiopia also holds a unique position among its peers, in part through never having been colonised.
Alongside parliamentary colleagues, including the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), I recently had the privilege of witnessing the excellent work of UNICEF and Ethiopian state and volunteer health workers in the southern region of Borena as they worked to fight malnutrition and its accompanying complications. We had discussions with national and regional Government officials and politicians, and also with recipients of the aid and relief: mothers with their infants, and community elders. I will, if I may, make three points about comments we heard about aid directed towards the country. They spoke of three ways of directing aid, with the first and preferred one being bilateral direct aid. That in particular could be used for capacity building in the country.
The approach to healthcare is community based, partly owing to circumstance and challenging terrain but also because of distance and a lack of infrastructure. That can be contrasted with our model of healthcare delivery, and we could learn something from a focus on primary aid and primary healthcare as an investment rather than a cost in terms of spending. The approach taken also—again, partly through circumstance and necessity—assumes a degree of personal responsibility. Agency is encouraged in the education provided in basic things such as hygiene and nutrition. We met some people who use a simple piece of paper to measure the circumference of an infant’s upper arm, which indicates the state of the child’s nutrition, and empower mothers to act on that and seek aid when necessary.
The second aid model spoken of was multilateral direct aid, which is what Gavi seeks to use. That again allows aid to be directed by the nation to where it can build capacity and strengthen systems and public service infrastructure. The third model discussed was implementation aid. The importance of its palliative relief was acknowledged by those we spoke to, but they were clear that it fails in leaving any legacy after it has been delivered. We saw some of the powerful benefits of that aid, but they were clear that the principal benefits to the nation lie not just in palliative relief for five missed rainy seasons and the consequences of the drought and famine that have followed but specifically in building up the necessary robust health infrastructure alongside that.
I have emphasised the importance of Ethiopia’s geopolitical relations with other members of the region. Ethiopia, as a leader in the region, and given its resources, is key to unlocking wider benefits in the region and bringing relief. These events call us to think bigger and drive us to be better. Bigger and better should also be our response to the questions asked of the UK and its international aid and relief efforts.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Gray. I offer huge congratulations to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing the debate, which is so timely. This issue is not getting the coverage it needs, so I am grateful for him giving it this exposure.
In the past five years, global food insecurity has worsened due to covid-19, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, inflation, extreme weather and armed conflicts. Tragically, that list is not exhaustive. Global food insecurity has culminated in a growing global hunger crisis. In particular, people living in east Africa are experiencing ever more severe levels of hunger. According to the World Health Organisation, 48 million people face crisis levels of food insecurity, 6 million people face emergency levels and 130,000 people face catastrophic—the highest—levels.
The scale of the challenge is immense. It is important that we remember that famine is not a one-off event. Hunger shocks cumulate. Communities become less capable of coping with the shocks, and the likelihood of famine increases. Hunger causes malnourishment and excess deaths. It allows infectious diseases such as measles, cholera and covid-19 to flourish, especially among children. Pregnant and breastfeeding mothers are particularly vulnerable, with almost one million of them in the region experiencing severe malnourishment. In addition, 5.1 million girls and boys are suffering from acute malnutrition. Children affected by hunger grow up stunted or wasted. Hunger has lifelong developmental impacts.
We know that hunger disproportionately affects women and girls. The International Development Committee heard that
“girls are eating less and girls are eating last”.
The hunger crisis has caused an increase in gender-based violence, including domestic violence and sexual harassment. Negative coping strategies are causing girls to be subjected to forced and early marriage.
East Africa has been particularly hit as the horn of Africa is suffering its worst drought for 40 years after five failed rainy seasons. The region relies extensively on rain-fed crops, meaning that the drought has devastated agricultural production, and 9.5 million livestock animals have already died across Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia, taking futures away. Food prices have reached unsustainable levels in east Africa, and much of that has been driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine is a major grain producer and exporter, from which Somalia typically imports 90% of its grain. I welcome the Black sea deal, agreed last July, which allows exports from Ukraine to resume, but the uncertainty of grain shipments continues to contribute to the hunger crisis.
Conflict in east Africa threatens food insecurity further. We have all seen the violence that erupted in Sudan 11 days ago. I am really grateful for today’s ceasefire, and I hope it leads to a lasting solution. Before the conflict began, 16 million people needed humanitarian aid, and now the violence is exacerbating shortages of medicine, food and water. The World Food Programme has been forced to pause its operations after three of its employees died in the conflict.
The hunger crisis did not occur out of the blue. Multiple organisations, including the United Nations, began to warn last year about the worrying humanitarian situation in the region. Frustratingly, there can be much human suffering and many deaths before famine is declared. In 2011, 260,000 died in Somalia due to famine, but 130,000 had already died before the famine was officially declared.
The International Development Committee sounded the alarm in July last year in its report on food insecurity. Following our oral evidence session, we wrote to the FCDO to ask it to commit emergency funding to the region to meet the humanitarian challenge, to support the Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal to raise funds to combat the approaching famine in the horn of Africa, and to match a proportion of the donations made. Despite those warnings, it failed to act. To prevent a famine in east Africa in 2017, the UK gave £861 million of humanitarian aid to the region, with Somalia alone receiving £282 million. In this financial year, the UK has committed only £156 million for the whole of east Africa, and I do not know whether that commitment has been fulfilled or whether it is still a pledge.
NGOs have noted that east Africa has received neither the attention nor the funding it requires, but money alone is not enough. The UK can use its position as a global leader to encourage others to act. We should use our position on the UK-led G7 famine prevention and hunger crisis compact, the G7 Global Alliance for Food Security and the Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme to persuade other countries to come together to prevent famine through humanitarian aid. Will the Minister please give an indication of the UK’s intention at the forthcoming pledging conference for the region?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for raising these issues and setting the scene so very well. He is a man of passion and understanding, and it is a real joy to sit alongside him in this debate. He and I often support each other in these types of debates.
I remember quite well the first time that I saw advertisements in the 1980s that showed children in Africa literally starving. It does not seem that long ago. My heart ached as I looked at my boys—I thank God that we were able to provide for them. I am always aware that there are people in the world who have literally nothing.
I am sad to say that many children are still starving. I am now a grandfather, and I feel that familiar tug in my heart today. I support many charities that have food programmes and operations in numerous countries in the horn of Africa, and they are stretched to capacity. They tell me that they are finding it very difficult to cope. Following five consecutive seasons of below-average rainfall, the horn of Africa is facing its longest drought in four decades. That is compounded by years of conflict and instability, the impact of climate change, covid-19—my goodness!—and rising food prices due to the war in Ukraine. Millions in the horn of Africa face acute hunger, and Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia have been particularly affected.
In its most recent review of the horn of Africa, published on 3 November 2022, the United Nations reported that 36.4 million people, including almost 20 million children, were affected by the drought, and that 21.7 million people, including 11 million children, needed food assistance. Those figures illustrate the magnitude of the issue. UNICEF estimated that some 5.7 million children in the region require treatment for acute malnutrition, with 1.8 million children experiencing life-threatening malnutrition.
Although famine has not been officially declared in the horn of Africa, with projections of a sixth consecutive below-average rainy season, the famine early warning systems network has estimated that the horn of Africa, especially Somalia, will face a famine in 2023—right now, as we sit in Westminster Hall, that is a reality. With this knowledge comes responsibility. I have absolute confidence that the Minister is aware of this House’s responsibility to do the right thing and increase not simply food aid, but ascertain how best we can channel projects to help families to become sustainable.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Like every other speaker, the hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case to make sure that properly targeted resources reach the places they are so desperately needed. Does he agree that the international response, in terms of both resources and resolving the conflicts behind this crisis, has been too slow and indecisive? It really does need a fresh start to ensure that the political conflicts that underlie all this are addressed urgently and effectively.
Jim Shannon
I certainly do agree, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. When the hon. Member for Glasgow North gave his introduction, he emphasised that very point, as others have as well. They are right: decisive action needs to be taken by the Minister and our Government. I am ever mindful that our Government and Ministers have been active, but we do require more incisiveness.
Some of my churches back home have been involved with a project where they were able to buy a pair of chickens, two pigs, two goats—small things, Mr Gray, but things that can really change a family’s life—with the idea that a family can breed those animals and live sustainably by selling the offspring. In the Upper Waiting Hall yesterday, and probably today, there was an exhibition on Yemen—one of the examples shown is that very project, which enables a family to be sustainable. The churches in my constituency of Strangford do that very thing.
Mr Gregory Campbell
On that point, will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the many hundreds of church and faith groups that do the type of thing he has outlined? Some do it on a small, localised scale, while others, through Tearfund and other organisations, do so on a significant, regional basis. Does he agree that that tribute is well deserved and should be supported by Government?
Jim Shannon
I totally agree with that. I conclude by urging the Minister to take on board the opinions of long-term NGOs that have been working in communities for years and understand what works and what does not. Some 500 humanitarian organisations have swiftly responded to reports of the evolving drought. The issues are clear. They have provided humanitarian assistance in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia, reaching 56%, 36% and 85% of the target populations in those countries respectively. We need to work in partnership with NGOs that have experience and passion for their people. I believe that we can and must do more. I urge the Minister to increase our engagement with those NGOs. They know the stories on the ground, and those must be built upon.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the friends of CAFOD, I appreciate immensely the opportunity to discuss this issue today. It is a topic that we must shout about, because we stand on the precipice of an unprecedented sixth consecutive failed rainy season.
The lethal combination of the global cost of living crisis, local conflict and climate change-induced drought has led to a humanitarian disaster. We have heard the figures mentioned a number of times, but standing in this Chamber today, we really cannot comprehend that one person is likely to die every 36 seconds in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya because of acute food insecurity. The UN predicts that half a million children are at immediate risk of death because of catastrophic hunger.
This is a humanitarian crisis that could have been avoided. In 2011, when famine was last declared in Somalia, the UN said that the warning signs of famine must never again be ignored, but the reality is that those warning signs, which we were told would be acted on, are being ignored once again.
Last year, the UK gave just one fifth of the aid provided to east Africa during the previous hunger crisis in 2017-18. The action then helped to prevent the spread of famine and undoubtedly saved lives, yet last week we heard that the aid budget for east and central African countries is being cut by a further £25 million in 2023-24. There are already 3.3 million internally displaced people across Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia as a direct result of the current crisis. As it persists, more people will look to take that treacherous journey north and will risk falling into the hands of people smugglers. Water scarcity is linked to around 10% of the global rise in migration, and global migration from drought and famine is also set to rise, which means that it is not just the lives of those directly affected and who are making these perilous journeys that will become less secure, but our whole world.
That is why the decision to spend three times more international aid in Britain than across the entire continent of Africa is baffling. In practice, that translates to the propping up of our ailing asylum system. Close to 30% of the money spent under Britain’s overseas aid budget goes on projects here in the UK. We are spending increasing amounts of money dealing with the consequences of global insecurity, rather than targeting those precious resources on the causes. The international aid budget has also been cut for the past three years, which is a short-sighted approach.
I want also to focus on what more can be done. Next month’s horn of Africa conference, which is being co-convened by the UK, offers us a real opportunity to advocate practical, targeted measures to make a meaningful, long-term difference to the region. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the aid must be targeted at local, resilient food systems. Local aid organisations know the needs in their areas best, and empowering them directly with international aid is a win not just in the short term but in the long term. We can also use the UK’s £11.6 billion international climate fund to ensure sustainable, resilient food systems that are better equipped to support local people, as climate change is also being caused by the global north.
Countries in east Africa are saddled with unpayable debts. The G20 debt service suspension is still hampered by the predominance of private creditors that are able to hold out from suspending debt. The UK is well positioned to help: 90% of affected countries’ bonds are governed by English law. There is more that we can do to enable these countries to focus their precious, scarce resources on relieving hunger rather than paying unpayable debt.
This crisis has not sprung out of the blue. It has been a long, slow-developing catastrophe, and the Government must make up time by sticking to their previous commitments and spending their aid—our aid—wisely. If once again the rains do not come, more people will die. It is that simple. In this cold, hard reality, the urgency of this cry must be heard.
James Gray (in the Chair)
There are nine minutes and two speakers. I call Hilary Benn.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on his excellent opening contribution.
The number of people affected by this crisis is truly staggering, and there is no doubt that the world, the UK included, needs to do more, but this is also a glimpse of a hellish future if we do not do more, as a world, to tackle poverty, conflict and climate change. This is a vision of what is to come.
Clearly, the cut in the aid budget and the fact that so much of it is being spent on refugees here in the UK means that the UK is doing less to assist. All of us who feel passionate about the UK’s international development efforts need to ask ourselves why, given the high point of 2005 with the Make Poverty History campaign, when our postbags and email inboxes were overflowing, so few people said anything when the aid budget was cut by the Government. I am the former International Development Secretary, and I got fewer than 10 emails.
If we are honest, we need to ask ourselves how we are going to remake the case— remake the argument—for countries to play their part in tackling the three great scourges of our time. Clearly, having a civil war is a really bad way to advance the interests of a country. One only has to look at Sudan today, South Sudan previously and the Sudanese civil war before that—three civil wars in the space of 35 years—to see that it leads to people fleeing, insecurity and poverty.
If that is not bad enough, human-made climate change is having the greatest impact of all and will wreak enormous damage on people’s lives if we do not do something about it. The truth is that we know what needs to be done; we just need to get on with it faster than we have been managing so far. I pay tribute to President Biden. For many years we criticised the United States of America for not doing enough, and then suddenly he came along with the Inflation Reduction Act. The initial response from some people was to complain and whinge and say it is not fair. I would tell them to not complain but emulate, because this is the future if we are going to tackle climate change.
My final point, which others have touched on, is that if we do not tackle climate change, the movement of people around the world will be on a scale that we have never before witnessed. Even during the Syria conflict, Lebanon’s population increased by 25%. That is the equivalent of 16 million people coming to Britain. Just pause and dwell on that prospect. I met climate refugees many years ago on a visit, as it happens, to Kenya, where people had moved because it stopped raining in the village where they lived. The fundamental truth is that human beings will not stay where they were born and brought up either to die of thirst or to drown as sea levels rise. They are going to be on the move, and the scale of movement will be enormous.
No wall, fence or immigration policy will prevent that movement. It is in our self-interest, in the true sense of the word, to do everything we can as a nation to help people in other parts of the world to be able to grow up, raise a family, live a healthy life, and be educated, safe and secure, wherever they happen to be. That is the argument as to why the United Kingdom should be doing more.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for securing this hugely important debate. I declare that I took part in a cross-party visit to Kenya in January, and the details are in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
As we have heard from the powerful contributions this morning, the horn of Africa has experienced one of the longest and most severe droughts on record. Some 46 million people in the region urgently need food assistance, and more than 16.2 million people cannot access sufficient water. Those numbers are absolutely staggering. The persistent droughts and severe flooding are the result of climate change, and the cause of mass displacement and loss of life. The situation has been compounded by the cost of living crisis and the war in Ukraine, which caused prices for wheat, oil and fuel to skyrocket, rising by 300% in March 2022. Some 4.5 million people are now refugees as a result of the crisis, and 12.7 million are internally displaced. The drought has damaged people’s ability to grow crops, raise livestock and buy food, and 9.5 million livestock have died across Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia alone. It is catastrophic.
In January of this year I joined a cross-party delegation that visited Marsabit, Kenya, where the crisis is rapidly increasing in severity. I would like to place on the record my thanks to CAFOD and everybody involved in that tremendous visit. Kenya declared a national disaster in September 2021 because of the drought, and UN figures estimate that the number of people affected by drought-driven hunger has increased from 1.4 million to 4.1 million in the last year. The fifth successive below-average rainy season has resulted in below-average crop production, poor livestock conditions and higher exposure to livestock diseases. I saw all of that when I went there. In turn, it has led to the loss of livelihoods and assets, and has increased food insecurity and malnutrition.
The drought has also had a devastating impact on children’s learning. Thousands of pupils have had to drop out of school due to the impact of food insecurity and climate-induced displacement. I will never forget the sights I witnessed, nor the magnificent fortitude of the people I met in Marsabit: the mothers who were distraught about how the crisis was threatening the education and futures of their children; the camels dying on the side of the road due to the unprecedented drought; and the communities decimated, with their standard of living disappearing before their eyes because of the loss of livestock.
I also saw how investment in people—in this case, water wells supplied by CAFOD—can transform and help the pastoralists to survive the drought and ensure they remain a key part of the future of Kenya, where they make up a fifth of the country. If Kenya loses those people and livestock, it poses an existential threat to the social and economic fortunes of the country and, indeed, of Africa.
As Action Against Hunger said in its briefing for this debate, in reality, millions of people are facing hunger and malnutrition and are losing their livelihoods due to a lack of political will to act. That includes the political will of this Government. I close my contribution by asking the Minister why the £156 million of funding committed by the UK in 2022-23 was only 20% of the amount committed to the region in 2017. Given the severity of the crisis we see before our eyes, I press the Minister to urgently increase funding now, for all the reasons that have been spoken so eloquently about today. Crucially, the Minister must ensure that the funding reaches local-led initiatives that have local knowledge and understand the short and long-term needs of the community. That is absolutely vital.
Furthermore, will the Minister commit to reinstating the aid budget to 0.7% of GDP as soon as possible? In addition to that immediate support, I urge the Minister to consult representatives from across the region to discuss what is needed to prepare for the future crisis, as well as long-term resilience building programmes, including climate adaptation, which is crucial for everybody.
Regarding the climate emergency, I am deeply concerned that the UK Government are yet to show the ambition required to avoid worsening catastrophic climate impacts. There needs to be an immediate change in direction to deliver on reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The UK must deliver additional funding for loss and damages caused by our contribution to the climate emergency.
The crisis across east Africa is now of immense proportions. As Action Against Hunger has said, famine is not a singular event but the result of a series of shocks that accumulate over time. With each shock, communities become less able to cope and another famine becomes more likely to occur. The UK need to provide immediate support as part of the urgent humanitarian response, as well as long-term support to prevent future crises and climate-driven displacement and that builds resilience in communities. I urge the Government to act with urgency.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I draw Member’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, which will be updated shortly to reflect my recent attendance on a cross-party delegation to Ethiopia. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this vital debate. Alongside the hon. Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), he set out that this is a crisis of unprecedented proportions.
Communities in the east and the horn of Africa are currently facing the worst climate-induced drought in 40 years. It is an evolving crisis that is shaping up to be worse than the drought that hit the region in 2010-11. I echo the comments made by the Opposition that the UK Government must take immediate action to increase the amount that they are providing in aid to the area.
As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has already stated, the region of east Africa and the horn of Africa has experienced the deadly combination of climate change, conflict and a global cost of living crisis. It is estimated by the international organisation Action Against Hunger that every 36 seconds one person in east Africa dies as a result of acute food insecurity. Five consecutive years of below-average rain means that the horn of Africa has experienced its longest and most severe drought in recent history.
Despite contributing just 0.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions, Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia are experiencing the brunt of a climate crisis that is worsening each year. As the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) said, the situation is exacerbated by global factors, such as the ongoing war in Ukraine, as Somalia is heavily reliant on Ukrainian grain imports, which make up 90% of its supply.
Tragically, all too often we have witnessed the devastating impact of drought in the region. In 2010 and 2011, a drought claimed the lives of 260,000 people, half of whom were under the age of five. Sadly, we now face a crisis that is expected to be significantly worse, yet the support available is much less than in previous years. It is imperative that we take action now to provide critical assistance and support to those affected by the crisis, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe of even greater magnitude.
As various Members have said, the continual cuts to humanitarian funding by the Conservative Government have left the UK ill-prepared to provide much-needed support to the region. In 2017, it faced the potential risk of famine. At that point, the UK provided £861 million in humanitarian aid, which undoubtedly saved thousands of lives; yet in 2022, the UK committed just £156 million to the region, which was 80% less than five years earlier. Despite our being aware of the potential for famine in the region since 2020, there has been no increased financial response from the UK.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that countries must consider their international aid response. The UK must do better when responding to such crises. The Conservative Government must immediately return to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid. Crucially, this funding should not come from shifting money around but by increasing the overall pot of funding available.
Although providing funding to address the immediate crisis is crucial, we must also look to the future and consider how to establish longer-term initiatives. The UK Government should follow the lead of the EU, New Zealand and the Scottish Government by establishing a loss and damage fund for those impacted by climate change. Somalia is the second most vulnerable country to the impact of climate change and would benefit from such a fund. By taking proactive measures, we can address the root cause of the crisis and help to build resilience to changing climate.
In its latest report, Plan International found that the causes and consequences of food insecurity are closely entwined with gender, particularly the gendered access to food, gender-based violence and the impact on education, as well as the impact on sexual and reproductive health and rights. The reality is that when food is scarce, girls and women bear the brunt—by eating less, eating last and eating the least nutritious foods. In this hunger crisis, women’s nutritional needs take a back seat to those of boys and men, particularly within households, putting women and girls at a higher risk of malnutrition.
The hunger crisis extends further than access to proper nutrition; it also has a detrimental effect on the levels of violence against women and girls. Plan International reports that incidences of rape, domestic violence, female genital mutilation and forced marriages rise in countries affected by a hunger crisis. It outlined that women are more vulnerable at water collection points and during the long journey there, with water shortages forcing them to travel—sometimes through the night—to water stations, putting them at greater risk of violence. The combination of extreme hunger and entrenched power imbalances creates the conditions for sexual exploitation of those simply trying to obtain food.
Additionally, the problem of early forced marriage has only been exacerbated by the hunger crisis. Girls are more likely to be married off to reduce the burden on families, or to allow their family to receive a dowry payment as a source of income. Early marriage can have a knock-on effect on girls’ education, whether it is withdrawn early or simply not seen as a priority. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who chairs the International Development Committee.
Just last month, I had the privilege of joining a cross-party delegation of MPs who travelled to Ethiopia with UNICEF. As the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) has said, we were there to learn more about how UNICEF is working to reach and treat malnourished children. A worldwide organisation, UNICEF provides roughly 80% of the world’s ready-to-use therapeutic food, which is a highly nutritious and effective peanut paste that is used to treat severe acute malnutrition.
The image of a mother carrying her severely malnourished child and feeding peanut paste to the child will never leave my brain. It is seared into my memory, because as soon as the child got the pack of peanut paste, they absolutely devoured it and could not get enough of it. That image will never leave me, and since returning home I have been making a conscious effort to change my eating habits to ensure that I try not to waste so much food.
The UNICEF staff out there were fantastic, especially Stanley, the UNICEF chief of nutrition in Ethiopia. He explained to us the impact of malnutrition on families, children and young mothers. In a camp, we spoke to one family. The mother had nine children, and her husband had gone back to his home area to try to build their lives up again. UNICEF staff gave nutrition packs to the family, but at the back of my mind was a thought that astounded me: the mum had brought forward one malnourished child who had been given a nutrition pack, but when she returned to her home area she would surely be sharing the packs among all the other children. In reality, there was not so much help for the child, who would get better only very slowly.
The UK has historically been a leader on international aid budgets. Although the Tory Government have scaled back their support, they can still help. Will the Minister commit himself to providing £70 million, as UNICEF has asked, for the child nutrition fund over the next 12 months? That funding would help to reach 1 million children through the early prevention, detection and treatment of severe acute malnutrition.
While I was in Ethiopia, I also visited the Dubluk internally displaced persons camp in the Borena zone. The site accommodates people who have been displaced internally by the drought. It can host 50,000 people. When we visited, there were about 15,000 there. However, across the Borena zone, as is the case in east Africa and the horn of Africa, the food security situation is worsening. Ethiopia is severely impacted by drought, and a lack of animal feed has meant that much of the livestock in the country has died. In turn, that has made food more expensive.
We had the opportunity to speak to some village elders. During our conversations, I asked what they wanted. They said that they are farmers, and that they wish to have the means to be self-sufficient and self-reliant. Depletion of livelihood income due to the prolonged drought has led to a drastic deterioration of the nutritional status of the vulnerable population, so will the Minister explain whether there are specific routes for aid funding for people who wish to rebuild their lives?
The overwhelming support from Members across the House on this issue demonstrates the gravity of the situation in east Africa and the horn of Africa, but words alone are not enough. We must back our words with action.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for securing the debate. All of us here will recognise that the debate is sorely overdue. In parts of east Africa, people are desperate following almost three years of severe drought: 22 million people are in acute food insecurity, 16 million have inadequate access to water and almost 10 million livestock animals have died. Those numbers are simply staggering. Some 5.1 million children are acutely malnourished. Their health has been severely weakened and they are vulnerable to disease. Many, should they survive, will experience lifelong impacts owing to stunting. The UN has estimated that, in Somalia alone, 43,000 people died because of hunger last year. More than half were children under the age of five.
We are now in the middle of the sixth rainy season since the drought began, and the limited rainfall so far is not enough. Recovery will take many years, so we need to look at extended support and partnerships to build resilience for when the rains inevitably fail in future. We must remember that the impact of food insecurity is not limited to hunger.
Zala had to drop out of school. Her parents could not afford to continue feeding her and her younger siblings. Things got worse and it seemed obvious that Zala would have to marry an adult man simply to survive. That would have put her at risk of early and unwanted pregnancies and all the dangers of giving birth as a child. It would have trapped her in a cycle of powerlessness and poverty.
Thankfully, a small intervention provided Zala with the means to put food on the table. She now has a future to look forward to, but other girls in the same village were not so lucky—girls whose much older husbands treat them as lifelong, unpaid servants; girls who are not allowed to leave the house; girls with bruises all over their bodies; girls who simply have no hope left. That is what food insecurity can mean.
I want to approach today’s debate country by country, because each country is different and needs targeted and sustainable solutions. I want to start with Sudan because the humanitarian consequences of the conflict are simply dire. Within Sudan, as we know, hospitals are being attacked. Supplies are being looted, including from humanitarian stocks, and people are running out of the basics. Even before the conflict began, Sudan had a hunger crisis that was linked to flooding and the political deadlock caused by the 2021 coup. Can the Minister say what plans are being made to respond to the forced displacement that we will see across the borders? That will obviously include South Sudan, where the humanitarian situation is already truly appalling.
In reality, conflict in South Sudan has never stopped, with frequent intercommunal and political violence and the use of atrocities, including mass rape as a weapon of war. Aid workers are killed with awful frequency. We see that in Sudan, too. I pay tribute to the brave aid workers killed in the past week and those who are still struggling to get aid to the most needy in the most desperate situations.
In South Sudan, repeated serious flooding destroys roads and clogs rivers, making humanitarian access really difficult. The floodwaters are mostly generated not by local rainfall but by rains hundreds of miles upstream. In many areas, crops can be destroyed by drought and by flooding—too much water and too little—almost side by side. Conflict, corruption, flooding and drought combined mean that an estimated 1.4 million children under the age of five are expected to suffer from acute malnutrition this year.
This is a bitter irony. From the conversations that I have had, the agricultural potential of South Sudan is massive. If there was sustained peace, and investment in irrigation and water management systems to safely distribute and conserve the Nile waters, food security could significantly increase. There would be no need for the people to be dependent on food aid or vulnerable to such recurring crises. Can the Minister tell us what approach he is taking to enable greater humanitarian access and sustained improvements in food security in South Sudan?
In Ethiopia, as we know, people face severe challenges in different areas of the country. In Tigray, although humanitarian access has significantly improved, it remains limited in more outlying areas. In parts of Oromia, hunger continues to be exacerbated by terrible conflict. Across the eastern regional states, the situation is similar to that in Somalia and north-eastern Kenya, with a brutal drought destroying livelihoods on a vast scale.
As we have heard, the hunger crisis is most intense in Somalia, where the Government’s efforts to combat al-Shabaab risk being totally undermined, if they cannot secure benefits for the people in recaptured areas. Even Kenya, a middle-income country, is struggling. Last month, I heard from a Kenyan NGO leader, who set out a truly dire picture. Even where women and girls are able to remain in their communities, they are having to walk all day for clean water, from 5 am to 6 pm.
As colleagues have already said, we need to recognise that this crisis is being exacerbated by climate heating. Last year, the Met Office published a climate risk report for the east African region, which says that in rural lowland areas, temperatures
“are already reaching the upper limits of human habitability”.
The paradox is that the average rainfall could increase over coming decades. There is more than enough water for the societies of east Africa to develop, but there will be more frequent heavy rainfall events, and more variability in rainfall from one year to the next. Without drastic improvements in water management, that will simply mean more deadly flooding, more soil erosion, more contamination of drinking water, and more deadly droughts.
I know the Government are playing a supporting role around access to climate finance for adaptation, and the new loss and damage mechanism. I hope the Minister will say more about how we can make those systems really work for the worst affected east African states because, frankly, the bureaucracy involved is insurmountable for many. I firmly believe that we need to think about resilience and development, not just about humanitarian aid, but this current crisis is far from over, and the continued support for nutrition, health and livelihoods is essential.
We now have confirmation of UK support for a pledging conference, which is sorely needed. Funding was forthcoming last year, primarily from the US, as we have heard, but stakeholders desperately need commitments for the next period. We know that, thanks to uncontrolled Home Office spending, the ODA budget for east and central Africa is set to fall yet again. Our pledge is now set to be £390 million for the entire, massive region. During 2017, the Government provided £861 million, which was just to the countries of Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya and South Sudan.
I know that the Government will advocate strongly for others to step up, but frankly we need to step up too. We need to support real solutions in partnership, working with the countries and communities most affected. We need to stop writing a blank cheque out of the ODA budget to prop up our failing asylum system. Otherwise, we will fail to play our part and fail to support the peoples of east Africa, just when they need our solidarity the most.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this morning. Mr Gray. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who has a previous ministerial engagement.
I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for securing this important debate. I also thank right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House, who spoke most eloquently and thoughtfully, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), and for West Ham (Ms Brown).
I should start by mentioning the very grave situation in Sudan. Colleagues will have listened to the statement in the Chamber yesterday by the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. It is clear to everyone that that appalling violence is bringing great suffering. We welcome the fragile ceasefire, and of course our thoughts are with those involved in the evacuation effort that was announced this morning. We wish them Godspeed. As has been laid out eloquently this morning, the conflict has placed the entire country in jeopardy. Nearly 6 million people in Sudan need life-saving aid, and the ongoing violence and outrageous attacks on relief workers have brought humanitarian operations to a standstill. Regretfully, many humanitarian agencies have therefore had to evacuate their personnel.
Clearly, information is limited. At least 427 people have been killed and 3,700 have been injured. Prices of essential items are very sharply increasing, and 11 health facilities are under attack. The situation is dire and we are entirely focused on it. Humanitarian access will clearly depend on the fragile peace holding, and the full resolve and determination of the Department is focused on that. My right hon. Friend the Minister will keep colleagues updated as we move through the difficult days ahead.
I turn to the subject of this debate. The situation in east Africa represents the largest humanitarian crisis in the world right now, and it is magnified by climate change, as eloquently laid out by the hon. Member for Glasgow North and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central. It is also driven by conflict in the African continent and aggravated by Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. The scale of the crisis is truly shocking: more than 72 million people will require humanitarian assistance in 2023. As we have heard, in the past 24 months, food insecurity and malnutrition rates have soared. Millions are now in crisis and hundreds of thousands of people, a great many of them children, are at imminent risk of famine.
Of course, climate change and conflict have converged in east Africa with deadly consequences. The war in Tigray, the threat of al-Shabaab in Somalia and the deadly ongoing violence in South Sudan and Sudan have placed millions in grave danger. Armed groups continue to act with impunity, and women and girls are bearing the brunt, as they often do.
After the fifth consecutive failed rains, Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya are experiencing the worst drought for 40 years, and the March to May rains are unlikely to provide the respite needed. That will further deepen the crisis. Millions have been displaced, livelihoods have been destroyed, and the resilience of communities has been eroded. At the same time, South Sudan has faced the worst flooding in its history, which has displaced vulnerable communities and left millions in need of assistance. As climate events become more severe and frequent, the most vulnerable communities are the hardest hit.
I turn to the UK’s action. The UK Government of course recognise the scale of the crisis, and we applaud the tireless efforts of the brave and dedicate humanitarian staff working in extremely challenging and hazardous conditions. We are committed to alleviating suffering, and we are playing a leading role in the international humanitarian response. We met our commitment last financial year to providing at least £156 million of humanitarian aid across east Africa. That aid has provided millions of people with life-saving assistance, including access to clean water and treatment for severely malnourished children, and emergency medical care, including specialist care for women who have experienced gender-based violence.
UK aid is providing hope across the region and is making a difference. As my right hon. Friend the Minister set out in a written statement on 30 March, we will spend £390 million of bilateral official development assistance in east and central Africa this financial year. We are committed, long-term partners in east Africa, and have invested more than £1 billion in humanitarian aid alone since 2019. Despite the temporary reduction in Government ODA spending, the UK is the third highest spender of ODA in the G7 as a percentage of gross national income. We spent more than £11 billion in aid in 2021. In recognition of the significant unanticipated costs incurred in supporting people from Ukraine and Afghanistan, the Government are spending an additional £1 billion in 2022-23, and £1.5 billion this year to help meet the costs of hosting refugees.
Sarah Champion
My cogs are whirring pretty slowly this morning. The Minister said that £300 million was going to east Africa. Is that for humanitarian aid? I know that British International Investment is investing capital money in Kenya, so I hope that he is talking about humanitarian aid, not the general aid going to the region.
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady asks a very good question. The breakdown of our commitment to east Africa will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for development and Africa. As she would expect, I will not pre-empt his announcement, but he will make that clear at the pledging conference on 24 May, which will be of great interest to her. We will also use that event to focus on how we break the cycle of crises affecting the region.
East Africa contains some of the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world, as has been eloquently described this morning, but they receive a tiny proportion of global climate finance, which could deliver the adaptation they need to build long-term resilience. We want to change that, so that countries can withstand the increasing challenges that climate change brings. Alongside that, we will meet our global pledge to commit up to £11.6 billion of UK climate finance between 2021 and 2026. The UK is also working with the UN and its members to ensure that response operations are as effective and efficient as possible.
The severity of the crisis is very clear. It has been eloquently described this morning, and the situation is at risk of getting worse. The Government understand that, and we are focused on it in the Department. Our humanitarian support to east Africa is providing millions of people with essential services, and we will continue to work with partners to save lives and build resilience for the future. While the current context is bleak, the UK is committed to addressing the long-term drivers of vulnerability and suffering, so that communities across east Africa can realise their potential and reap the benefits of stability and development.
Patrick Grady
I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. It has been incredibly encouraging to hear cross-party consensus on the action that needs to be taken. I will not list everyone who spoke, because the Minister just did that, but I am extremely grateful for both the interventions and the speeches that have been made.
I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) on her appointment as the SNP’s international development spokesperson, a role that I held from 2015 to 2017. As she says, it never really leaves you, which is one of the reasons why we are here today.
A few key themes emerge from the debate, which I hope the Minister will continue to reflect on. The first is the action that is needed at the pledging conference, which has to include an upscaling of the aid that has been committed. That means that there has to be a move away from spending ODA money in the United Kingdom. Of course refugees and asylum seekers who arrive here need to be supported, but that should not be at the expense of our response to the poorest and most vulnerable people elsewhere in the world. The importance of focusing on women and girls, who are otherwise left eating less, eating last and eating the least nutritious food, came through very clearly as well.
The whole crisis in east Africa was completely avoidable and totally preventable. There is a need for resilience for the future, and this debate has drawn attention to the current situation. We must continue to keep this issue at the front of the Government and wider public’s mind. We hear from constituents about it, and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is absolutely right to say that we have to rebuild the consensus that existed in 2005.
I note that the Chamber is filling up for the next debate, which is to be led by the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and is on universal infant free school meals. Imagine if free school meals were truly universal—for every single child on this planet, not just in this country. If it is good enough for children in this country, it should be good enough for children in every single country in the world. That really would bring about an end to food insecurity, and it would provide a more stable basis for future development. I wish Members taking part in that debate all the best, and I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this one.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered hunger in the East and Horn of Africa.
Universal Infant Free School Meals
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered universal infant free school meals.
It is good to see you in the headteacher’s chair, Mr Gray. In my time in the House, I have seen many innovative ways of speaking in a debate, but the mover of one debate speaking on the following one, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has just done, is a new one, even on me.
There are lots of debates around on universal infant free school meals, and lots of things that could be meant by that phrase. A number of the briefings I have been sent ahead of today’s debate back up that view. There is the campaign being pushed by Jamie Oliver and others on extending the free school meal entitlement to all children. There is the ongoing debate on school holiday food for those eligible for free school meals during term time. On that issue, I want to recognise how responsive and welcome Ministers have been, getting help to my constituents where it is most needed. I place on the record my thanks to them for that.
Today’s debate, however, is not about either of those areas, important though they are. I want to focus on the pressure being felt by headteachers across my constituency, and, I am sure, elsewhere, when it comes to meeting the cost of what is supposed to be a universal entitlement to free school meals for infant-aged children. Put simply, there is a gap between the funding received and the cost of putting good-quality food on the school table. There is an inevitable impact on school budgets, which make up the shortfall. Heads began to raise that issue with me late last year. We will come on to some figures for Winchester in a moment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue this forward. He is absolutely right. There is pressure on headmasters. There is pressure coming from parents, who are having difficulty providing meals for their children at school, and school uniforms. On support for parents, including through the universal provision of school meals, does he agree that the least we could do for all those working parents who are struggling to make ends meet is to help them, and help headmasters as well?
Steve Brine
Yes, headmasters and headmistresses are in a very difficult position; I will quote some of them shortly.
Representatives of UK wholesalers have contacted me to express concern about the fact that because of food inflation, rising energy bills and increased labour costs, they are fulfilling their public sector food contracts, but at a loss. I think there was broad welcome for the Government’s recent decision to increase the funding for universal infant free school meals by 7p per pupil, but that rise remains well behind the rise in food inflation, which is running at 20% for wholesalers, according to the Federation of Wholesale Distributors.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for supporting my recent campaign to increase funding for school breakfast clubs for infants. Will he continue to support that campaign? Does he agree that school breakfast clubs effectively complement the provision of school lunches, which he so confidently and eloquently campaigns for?
Steve Brine
Yes. School food is important. My good friend, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), chair of the all-party parliamentary group on school food, is here. When I was the public health Minister, I worked with Kellogg’s on school breakfast clubs and the breakfast club awards that it runs so successfully in our country. I am sorry that the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) did not bear fruit in this Budget, but I know he will not give up, and I shall work alongside him. As Chair of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care and a constituency MP, I am interested in this issue, as well as in wider prevention work. Healthy, well-fed children learn well.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mrs Hodgson
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I chair the APPG on school food. He makes the point that the money given for infant free school meals has not kept pace with inflation. Public sector caterers are really struggling to continue to provide the high-quality meals that we all want provided. If funding had risen with inflation since 2014, the amount per meal would stand at £2.97; it is currently only £2.41, as the hon. Gentleman knows. By my maths, that is a 19% shortfall—£150 per year, per child. The Government are yet again asking schools to do more with less. Does he agree that school meal funding needs to be made fit for the future?
Steve Brine
That is the point of today’s debate. I will supplement the figures that the hon. Lady gave in one moment. We have slightly digressed, and now we are back on subject. I am told that the impact of food inflation has already resulted in some pupils being forced to accept smaller lunches with potentially lower nutritional value, and in some cases schools have opted to offer only packed lunches because of the cost of the energy needed to produce lunches. Some wholesalers have reported that they are reducing portion sizes; thinner sliced ham in baguettes and reduced meat content in sausages are two examples. That should worry all of us.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for making such significant points on this issue. As somebody who used to receive free school meals, and coming from a constituency where a high number of children receive free school meals, I really understand the importance of a good-quality meal. Does he agree that the Government must really look at all avenues to try to avert this serious shortfall in covering the price of school meals?
Steve Brine
Yes, and I will come on to my asks. One that I was not going to cover, but will, is the discrepancy between the amount we pay for the universal infant entitlement and the amount we pay for those who are entitled to free school meals through circumstances. There is a curious difference. Why does the one meal rate one amount, and the other a different amount? I know that the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, certainly recognises that.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies recently published its report on the costings of free school meals. I am not sure if the Minister saw its work, but it found that if the price per meal had risen with inflation since 2014, it would be £2.87 today. That is a few pence lower than the figure mentioned by the chair of the APPG, but it is clearly still a big jump from the current £2.41.
The Local Authority Caterers Association has in its membership over 300 local authorities, as well as contract caterers, catering managers, and kitchen and school staff, which means that some 80% of school food is provided by its members. It told me that without change, the future of the sector is, in its word, “bleak”. In March, it published its “If not now, when?” mission, which calls on the Government to reform school meal funding, address inflationary pressures, and commit to ongoing reviews that make adjustment for inflation. I echo that as my first ask this morning, and this is why: one school in my constituency—I will not name any of them, to respect their wishes—receives £2.41 per child, yet as of October last year, it pays £2.80 per child, per school meal, to the main provider in Hampshire. It told me that it had to subsidise meals with around £4,700 from the school budget between November 2022 and the end of the financial year, which has just passed.
Another small rural school in my constituency reported a total shortfall this financial year of £3,150. These do not sound like big figures, but the metric goes up: the bigger the school, the bigger the numbers. When there are very tight budgets—which, of course, they have—they can be tipped into a deficit situation.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this really important debate. Many of the points he makes are exactly the points that primary schools in my constituency of Twickenham raise with me regularly. Although we and they welcome the Mayor of London’s announcement that he will roll out free school meals to all primary children next year for a year only, there are grave concerns that that will not be funded properly. Some primary schools told me that they could find themselves £30,000 to £40,000 out of pocket if the meals are not funded properly, and the capital cost of expanding kitchens and dining areas is not met. Does he agree that although the policy change is welcome, it needs to be funded properly?
Steve Brine
I do, and if I were a London MP, I would be very concerned about that. I can understand that the policy is electorally attractive on a leaflet, but unless it is funded, we could end up with the situation that I am describing, times some. As I said, the debate is not about widening entitlement to free school meals to all primary children, but the hon. Lady sets out a great danger.
Mrs Hodgson
On a point of clarification, I, too was worried about the funding and had read the same information as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), so I asked to meet the Mayor of London’s team, who will be taking the programme forward. They assured me that although a sum of money has been assigned—a proposed £2.65 a meal—the funding will be found and will be sustainable. They are aware of the concerns, but—
Steve Brine
We can go down this rabbit hole. The funding can be found up front, as it was for the free bus pass entitlement, but it can then tail away. It is a matter of whether it is sustained, as the hon. Member mentioned; that is the key point.
I have two other examples. A Winchester city centre school contacted me predicting a shortfall of about £4,000 in the financial year that we have just entered. A larger infant school told me of an £11,000 deficit on school meals last year. The head told me:
“This is having a significant impact on an already very pressured budget; we have an in-year deficit of around £25,000 this year and nearly half of that is caused by the infant school meals offer.”
That is not easy listening, but these are real figures from real schools and real headteachers in my patch.
To conclude the examples, one headteacher put it to me:
“My point is that Universal Free School Meals are not free. Parents believe they are. Therefore, quite rightly they opt for their children to have school meals. I know of schools who are now writing to their parents explaining the situation and asking them for a donation to cover the cost of their child’s meal. Personally, I do not want to be forced down this route. If the meals are advertised as free, then they should be free (there’s a clue in the name!).”
She concludes:
“When this Government policy came in, it was not meant to have a financial impact on schools and, indeed, it means that schools like ours will be forced to set a deficit budget and hence make staffing cuts.”
There is perhaps hope in the story. It is only right to report that, during my research for the debate, I heard from one school in my area—I do not doubt that there could be others—that is taking matters into its own hands and moving away from Hampshire County Council Catering Services, or H3CS, which is the main provider of food to Hampshire’s schools.
One school told me that it had made the switch to another provider where meals are
“better quality, with wider choice, and at a reasonable price for families.”
It tells me that the food is seasonal and locally and sustainably sourced, with zero single-use plastic. As MPs, we all know that when we go into our schools, the No. 1 issue that children want to talk to us about is plastics, the environment and sustainability, so it ticks lots of boxes. Yet 82% of Hampshire’s schools—mostly primary schools—use H3CS, despite support being available to move providers if that is what they want.
For some schoolchildren, the school meal will be their only hot meal that day. It might be their only meal that day. We know that the provision of good-quality food is key to pupils’ wellbeing and ensuring that they can fully engage in teaching and learning. We also know that school budgets are under pressure, but I hope that the Minister recognises from the examples I have given that there is an issue.
We must ensure that the provision of a good-quality meal does not need to be subsidised by funds intended to support core education. It is therefore essential that the rate is adjusted to reflect rising costs. Will the Minister update the House on that? Will he also update me on any moves afoot to reform school meal funding and simplify the equitable flow of money from Government to school kitchen? Lastly, what can the Government do to promote a more diverse, competitive marketplace in school food? What support does the Department provide to local authorities, and therefore headteachers, to make it easy for schools to switch when they deem a change is to the advantage of their setting?
I am grateful to those who contacted me ahead of the debate, especially the headteachers in Winchester and Chandler’s Ford. This aspect of school food is not much discussed in the House—I have not taken part in a debate on the issue, and I have been here for almost 13 years—so I am pleased to raise some of the issues brought to me through my constituency casework. I thank colleagues for their interventions and look forward to hearing from my good friend the excellent Schools Minister.
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your beady eye, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing this important but short debate on school food. We can all agree on the importance of ensuring that children in school are given the best opportunities to succeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), in an intervention, raised the issue of school breakfasts. The Government are committed to continuing to support school breakfasts. In November last year we extended the national school breakfast programme for an additional year. Overall, we are investing up to £30 million in that programme, which will support up to 2,500 schools in disadvantaged areas, meaning that thousands of children from low-income families will be offered free, nutritious breakfasts to better support their attainment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester also raised the issue of the holiday activities and food programme. This year, the Government are again investing over £200 million in that programme, with all 152 local authorities in England delivering it. Last summer, the programme reached over 685,000 children and young people in England.
The Government support the provision of food in schools so that pupils are well nourished, develop healthy eating habits and can concentrate and learn. The universal infant free school meal policy, introduced by a Conservative- led Government in 2014, is a vital component of that provision.
Munira Wilson
I hope the Minister will recognise that that was a Liberal Democrat policy? It was a flagship policy introduced by the coalition, and we were very proud of it. However, since 2014, as we have heard, the funding for that policy has only risen by 11p, which is why we have the yawning gap that Members have pointed out today. Will the Minister put on record that schools should not be forced to choose between cutting and scrimping on teaching budgets—and other budgets that benefit children—and eroding food standards?
Nick Gibb
Of course, I acknowledge the Liberal Democrats—that is why I said Conservative-led Government. It was a policy of both parties; we believed in it very strongly and we made sacrifices elsewhere in budgets in order to fund it. I acknowledge that it was a coalition Government—a coalition policy—that led to the introduction of universal infant free school meals, which we have maintained ever since.
We recognise the cost pressures that schools and suppliers are facing. Officials are holding regular meetings with other Government Departments and representatives of the food industry to discuss a variety of issues, including public sector food supply. I take this opportunity to thank the companies and organisations that my officials have spoken to for the constructive steps they have taken to deliver services to our schools.
Schools manage their own contracts using Government funding to procure services from private sector caterers or local authorities. Particular pressures have arisen as a result of food price inflation, which has risen higher and faster than the headline consumer prices index rate.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I think everybody in the debate understands the importance of children being well fed in order to learn well, but seven out of 10 families on universal credit are still not receiving free school meals. Given the very strong public support—over 80% of the public support free school meals for children in households receiving universal credit—is it not time to look at that specific group? As the Minister said, food inflation is so high that family budgets have been stretched very thin.
Nick Gibb
One reason why the number of children eligible for benefits-related free school meals has risen from 1.7 million to 1.9 million is the protections we put in place as families move on to universal credit.
I know that, along with transport costs, increased staff costs have also affected the industry, primarily linked to rises in the national minimum wage. We continue to review funding in order to ensure that schools can provide healthy and nutritious meals.
Janet Daby
This is a very serious point that affects children across our constituencies. The Minister says that the Government are reviewing it, but how long it will take for them to do so and when we will get some of the decisions we seek?
Nick Gibb
Of course, we keep all the issues under review and continually look at school funding. We look at the composition of the national funding formula in great detail every year; we are doing so now for the following year.
The funding for the free school meal factor in the national funding formula is increasing by 2.4% for 2023-24 in line with the latest available GDP deflator forecast when the 2023-24 national funding formula was published in July of last year. As a result of the significant extra school funding awarded by the Chancellor in the autumn statement, schools will receive an additional £2 billion in each of the ’23-24 and ’24-25 academic years.
The core schools budget, which covers schools’ day-to-day running costs, including their energy bills and the costs of providing income-related free school meals, rose from £49.8 billion in ’21-22 to £53.8 billion the year after, and will continue to rise to £57.3 billion in ’23-24 and £58.8 billion in ’24-25. By ’24-25, funding per pupil will have risen to its highest ever level in real terms. Those increases provide support to schools to deal with the impact of inflation on their budgets.
We spend about £600 million a year ensuring that an additional 1.25 million infants enjoy a free, healthy and nutritious meal at lunchtime. Combined with around 1.9 million pupils who are eligible for and claim a meal through benefits-related free school meals, this accounts for more than one third of all pupils in school, compared with 2010, when one sixth of pupils were eligible for free school meals. The Government also support a further 90,000 disadvantaged further education students with a free meal at lunchtime.
All children in reception, year 1 and year 2 in England’s state-funded schools receive a free meal, and have done since the introduction of the policy in 2014. Schools up and down the country offer free meals to their infant pupils, helping to improve children’s education, boost their health and save parents around £400 a year. Universal infant free school meals are funded through a direct grant to schools. To recognise the pressures facing schools, last June we announced an £18 million increase to the per-pupil funding rate for universal infant free school meals to support costs of food, transport and staff wages. That increased rate was backdated to April in recognition of those costs.
We understand the issues that are being raised and acknowledge that factors such as transport costs and the cost of living wage affecting catering workers are having an impact on the amount that can be spent on infant meals in schools. The Government take on board the comments regarding a discrepancy between the funding rate attributed to universal infant free school meals when compared to the rate provided for those pupils in receipt of benefits-related free school meals. The rate of funding for UIFSM is regularly reviewed, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester and all other hon. Members taking part in this debate that I am actively looking at this area. All school meals provided under universal infant free school meals are required to adhere to the school food standards, which require school caterers to serve healthy and nutritious food and drinks to ensure that children get the energy and nutrition that they need across the school day.
In recognition of cost pressures on core schools funding, including benefits-related free schools meals, we have already distributed additional funding through a schools supplementary grant. As a result, core schools funding for mainstream schools increased by £2.5 billion in the 2022-23 financial year, compared with the previous year.
It is right that individual schools determine their own budgets for meal provision by taking into account funding received centrally alongside funding for meals paid for by parents. We expect schools to enter into supply contracts accordingly. While the Government set the legal requirements for food provision and standards, we do not set the contract price, which is subject to agreement between schools and the suppliers.
Mrs Hodgson
The Minister mentioned the importance of those meals being healthy, and that is a key factor in UIFSM. It is not just about alleviating food poverty, but about removing the stigma. On the health point, the four London boroughs that have extended school meals to all primary children have found that obesity rates have fallen by 9.3% in reception children, and 5.6% in year 6 children. Pockets of bad practice on school food are few and far between, and we normally hear about good practice. The Minister will agree that school food is by far the healthiest option. Only 1% of packed lunches have been found to meet the school food standards.
Nick Gibb
I do not disagree with the hon. Member. Food standards and the regulations are very stringent, and we keep those regulations under review because I want to look at other issues within them. School food can also be used as a way of teaching children to adopt a healthy diet. The hon. Member made her point well.
I talked about schools being responsible for their contracts. Although we are clear that individual schools are responsible for their own budgets, we provide a free advice and guidance service for state schools, aiming to help them save money on existing contracts. The “get help buying for schools” service is made up of various resources to help schools buy goods and services efficiently and in compliance with all the regulations.
In conclusion, the provision of meals to infant pupils in school, and the wellbeing and nutrition of eligible pupils, are at the top of the Government’s priorities. We are monitoring the costs of schools and suppliers, and we have increased funds both directly through the amounts allocated for free school meals and via the universal infant free school meals grant, and indirectly by increasing core schools budgets. I understand and acknowledge the pressures that the industry is facing, and we will continue to take that into account when determining spending priorities.
I am confident that the offer we have in place through universal infant free school meals ensures that those children receive the best start to their time in school. It ensures that they can develop healthy eating habits at an early age, and that they can concentrate and learn. The offer also ensures that the Government continue to provide targeted support to pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds who are most in need.
Question put and agreed to.
Affordable Homes Programme
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Affordable Homes Programme.
It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am so glad to have secured this important debate on the affordable homes programme, and I am immensely grateful to the House authorities for granting it.
Affordable housing is one of the most depressing and urgent issues facing the good people of Slough and communities across our country. Rarely does an advice surgery go by without a constituent raising concerns about their dire housing situation. Although I commend the bold ambitions of the affordable homes programme, which aims to build 180,000 new homes outside London by March 2026, it is clear that when it comes to delivering on housing the Government continue to fall far short of the mark. The reality is that we face an affordable housing crisis. The basic promise made to each generation that if they work hard they can one day own their own home has been broken.
I speak to young people in their 20s and 30s, often with children, who tell me the same thing: they have as much chance of settling on the moon as they have of buying a home in Slough. This week the estate agent’s window shows a four-bedroom house in Slough for £750,000, a two-bedroom bungalow for £525,000 and a one-bedroom flat for £300,000. Even with an elusive 5% deposit mortgage, those prices are way beyond the reach of shopkeepers, teachers, nurses, home care assistants, police officers, firefighters and even junior doctors.
Since the Conservatives came to power about 13 years ago, 800,000 fewer households under 45 own their home, and 1 million more people are renting—so much for the “property-owning democracy”. The answer would be a renewed social rented sector, but the number of truly affordable homes being built has fallen by 80%. The system is broken and the Conservative Government are doing next to nothing to fix it.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
We are all aware of the housing crisis that Britain faces, but I am pleased we have a Labour-led council in Manchester that understands the problem and has set out a plan to build at least 10,000 affordable homes across our city in the next decade, with more than 1,000 affordable homes and 250 new council houses in the coming year. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tory Government in Westminster are failing to match the vision of Labour councils to tackle the housing crisis?
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I commend Manchester City Council, the Mayor of Greater Manchester—my good friend Andy Burnham—and others who have made sure that councillors and Members of Parliament have come together to have that ambitious house building programme, but it seems the Government are asleep at the wheel. They have made bold statements, but are not following through. I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that one in four Tory MPs are private landlords.
The much respected organisation Shelter reports that there are 1.4 million fewer households in social housing than there were in 1980. Combined with excessive house prices making homes unaffordable, demand has been shunted into the private rental sector, where supply has been too slow to meet need. That means above-inflation increases in rents, especially in the south of England and in places such as Slough.
On the affordable homes programme, the National Audit Office reports that there is a 32,000 shortfall in the Government’s original targets for building affordable homes. It goes on to say that there is a “high risk” of failing to meet targets on supported homes and homes in rural areas. Ministers’ targets will be confounded by double-digit inflation, soaring costs of materials and supply disruption, yet the Government seem to have no clue how to mitigate those factors. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us today. As the NAO report outlines, the issue is not just the number of homes, and I share the NAO’s concerns that there is also a lack of focus on the quality, size and environmental standards of the new homes. Perhaps the Minister will also be able to provide some reassurance on those important points.
The NAO is not the only one with concerns about the delivery of the programme. I am pleased that the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), is here for the debate, and I am sure she will attest to the fact that in December the Committee’s report outlined that the Minister’s Department
“does not seem to have a grasp on the considerable risks to achieving even this lower number of homes, including construction costs inflation running at 15-30% in and around London.”
Exactly when will the revisions to the 2021 plan be published, as recommended and agreed by the Minister’s Department?
The fact is that we need a renewed national effort to fix the housing market and fulfil the promise of owning one’s own home to the next generation. That national effort may well have to wait for the election of a Labour Government, which will have a target of 70% home ownership.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for this important debate. Under the leadership of Ian Ward, Birmingham has committed to having 60,000 additional houses, but unfortunately, as my hon. Friend says, cost rises mean that that will be difficult to achieve. Also, housing associations create traps for people in my community, who are unable to afford to buy their properties or to have their children take them over. That is not the way forward; we need councils to be properly resourced to build the houses.
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I commend the work of Councillor Ian Ward, whom I met recently. During my recent visit to Birmingham, I was able to meet council members, who spoke about their hopes and aspirations, but also to the constraints on them given limited resources from Government—indeed, they alluded to the high inflation they now have to contend with.
People sometimes say, “How can there be a housing crisis when there are cranes on our skylines and new houses and flats going up all over?” But those homes are rarely affordable and are often snapped up by investors off plan. Many remain empty—an investment by overseas property tycoons. That leaves hollowed-out communities with flats but no residents. That is why I am so glad that the Labour party has pledged to close the loopholes developers exploit to avoid building more affordable housing and give first-time buyers first dibs on new developments. I very much hope to hear more about those exciting plans from the Labour party spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), later in the debate.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. It is not just Labour councils but Conservative-controlled councils that give land to the developers. There is one development on Broadway where the average house costs £800,000, which is way beyond the reach of most of my constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as putting targets on developers, we must give housing associations the freedom to build houses? We see people at our surgeries crying out for homes. We must look at the need and then give housing associations the freedom to build those houses.
Mr Dhesi
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The experiences she has at her advice surgeries talking to her constituents chime neatly with what I am being told. Yes, we must empower housing associations and others to build homes. The focus especially on building council homes is incredibly important, because that is where we as a nation are failing. There is huge demand for council housing in particular, not just in Walsall but in my constituency, but there is just not the supply to go around. That must urgently be looked at. Those targets are being missed.
I hope that Labour will end the scandalous practice of foreign buyers purchasing swathes of new housing developments off plan before local people can even see them. We will strengthen the rights of tenants with a new private renters charter. Only a generation ago a couple in work could aspire to get on the property ladder, to eventually pay off their mortgage and to give their children a helping hand. Today, that dream is out of reach for millions thanks to the utter failure of this Government. The Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), is the 15th since the Tories came to power and the sixth to hold the post in the past 12 months alone. What hope do ordinary people have with such chaos at the very heart of Government?
Labour will build the homes that people need. We will take steps to meet demand in the decades to come and we must also boost social housing, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). That is how a Labour Government will fix Britain’s broken housing market for people in Slough and across our nation.
If the Government cannot, or will not, commit to matching Labour’s focus on this vital issue, if they cannot deliver genuinely affordable homes and if they continue to let this programme fall even further behind, they should just admit that they have given up trying to help the millions struggling with housing across our country.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend on his speech on this really important issue. Does he agree that language is very important and that the word “affordable” suggests something that people on a normal income could afford? However, we all know that the word “affordable” in housing circles actually means 80% of market rent, which is unaffordable for most people. In some of the constituencies represented by Members present, that is unaffordable even for the Member themselves.
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend for that very valid point. It is one that many of us have been making for years. Definitions are incredibly important. What is affordable to one person is unaffordable to another. That is why a laser-like focus, on social housing in particular, is incredibly important; many people cannot afford to get into the private rented sector, let alone buy their own home. I fully agree with my hon. Friend.
The Government must act urgently. If they cannot, perhaps they should step aside for those of us who want to, and can, deliver the transformative changes needed to guarantee that home ownership once again becomes a reality for all generations.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 4 pm. I am obliged to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 3.37 pm, and the guidelines are that the Opposition spokesperson and the Minister should have 10 minutes each. The mover of the motion will have three minutes to sum up the debate at the end. Until 3.37 pm, which is just under an hour away, we are in Back-Bench time. I am confident that everyone will get in if no one speaks for too long.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for securing this debate.
Britain’s housing market is broken. Renters have been priced out of the cities they have called home for their entire lives. Young people cannot get a foot on the ladder, and most of the homes that are built are unaffordable. Research by Crisis and the National Housing Federation found that, over the next decade, 145,000 affordable homes must be built each year, with 90,000 of those for social rent, if we are going to meet housing needs in England alone. The truth is that we are nowhere near meeting the overwhelming need that already exists. With only 13% of homes built between 2021 and 2022 designated for social rent, it is clear that the Government are not taking this crisis seriously. The scale of the challenge ahead is monumental, and Ministers have their heads in the sand, hoping it will all just go away.
Let me demonstrate the problem to the Minister, using statistics from my constituency, which has been badly affected. The statistics clearly outline how the housing crisis in this country has spiralled out of control over the past 13 years. In Coventry, the number of new social housing lettings has fallen by more than a third over the past decade. Looking at the most recent figures, 1,939 of the new social housing lettings were in the most affordable category, down from over 4,000 10 years ago. We have nearly 6,000 households stuck on the waiting list, chasing the handful of homes that ever become available.
Behind those numbers are the lives of thousands of constituents whose futures are being robbed from them by a lack of decent housing. I want to give three examples of constituents who have been affected. The first has four sons, who are cramped into one bedroom, denied any privacy or space to revise for next month’s exams. The lack of any ground-floor flats has left the second constituent, crippled from a lifetime of hard physical labour, sleeping on his sofa and doing his washing in the sink. My third constituent is a cancer patient who needs round-the-clock care but who is trapped in a tiny bedsit up a flight of stairs he can barely climb, with no facilities for anyone to stay with him overnight and nowhere to move.
What more evidence do the Government need to accept the scale of the housing crisis that has grown and grown since they came into power? Change is overdue. The inaction of Ministers has left us gripped by a planning and development free-for-all where developers hold all the power. They decide which type of homes are built, where they are built and the prices they are sold for. They are accountable to absolutely nobody—not residents, not local councils and not even the Government in Westminster. Even as we speak, thousands of Coventry families are being denied a modest social home, while historic hedgerows and badger setts are being torn out in Keresley by developers constructing half-a-million-pound executive mansions, which are irrelevant to local need and built solely for private profit.
The big picture is really bad. The specifics of the planning system, however, are even worse. Take housing targets. Coventry has long been singled out for unfair treatment by this Government, who demand that more and more houses be built every year but do nothing to ensure there is enough social housing for those in need. For years, Whitehall ignored Coventry’s residents and councillors, who said time and again that the projections were wrong. Time and again our concerns were cast aside, with Ministers simply too gutless to order an investigation that might uncover an inconvenient truth. Tacked on to this is the 35% uplift—a further inflation of figures that bear no relation to the lack of brownfield sites in our city or the housing mix Coventry residents need.
Thanks to the census, the facts are now clear. The Government’s population estimates were wrong by a massive 30,000 people, rendering the plans drawn up as a result of those figures virtually worthless. Now our councillors are left having to revise the local plan to make up for the unforgivable errors of Ministers—errors that the council reported long ago and that were ignored by those in Westminster, despite the fact I raised the issue on several occasions with the Minister’s predecessor.
As it stands, the planning system is a shambles. A complete overhaul is desperately needed, with local communities and local government in the driving seat. That way, they can set the direction of travel for new developments in their neighbourhood, delivering affordable homes for families exactly where they are needed. The housing crisis will only get worse unless the Government reform planning and deliver for the needs of people up and down the country. I hope the Minister will outline what steps the Government are taking to achieve that reform.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I thank my good and hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for securing such a vital debate on affordable housing. I echo a point made by Members across the Chamber. My definition of affordable housing, and certainly that of my constituents, is somewhat different from the Government’s definition of 80% of market rents. That is certainly not affordable for people in many cities, including those in the south-east, London, Birmingham and Manchester, or for people in parts of my constituency. It is beyond the reach of far too many people. All we have to do is look at the evidence, with 1.2 million people and rising on the housing need register and the 300,000 children referenced by the National Housing Federation living in cramped accommodation, sharing beds with siblings. It is simply not good enough. It demonstrates that the housing crisis is one of affordability up and down the country.
I could also refer to the pitiful number of homes—7,400—built for social rent last year. When we take into account those lost through right to buy and demolition, we see that the actual figure for last year was minus 14,000. If we map every year over the last 13 years, we see that the average net loss is about 12,000 homes, which is simply not good enough.
The evidence from the National Housing Federation and Shelter, which was referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), shows that about 90,000 homes for social rent should be built every year over a decade. How could the Government fund that? They could reconfigure the affordable homes programme of £11.4 billion and stop much of the £23 billion of housing benefit going to substandard housing, as evidenced in a City Hall report last year.
I want to focus on a particular development in the Weaver Vale patch that could be completed if a Government Minister were to intervene. Homes England is involved in the development. A number of developments are taking place across Weaver Vale in Helsby, Sandymoor and Hartford, which will result in more than 1,000 properties being built. A number of them will be built through section 106 in terms of housing associations. The properties are probably three-quarters completed, but they are now subject to vandalism because Lane End Developments, which was based in Warrington, has gone into administration. The same is true of other market-led developers, given the downturn in the market and the fact that planning applications are down by 16%.
My plea to the Minister, who is currently rather busy on his mobile phone, is for him to intervene on the development. [Interruption.] Yes, thank you for taking notes. I have written to Homes England. The development would meet targets that the Government no longer seem to have, but it would also, importantly, ensure that constituents in my patch could fulfil their dreams and hopes. It would enable some to get on to the property ladder, some to go into shared ownership, and others to get homes under the current definition of affordable rent. Of course, what we need is 90,000 houses a year and a generation of social housing. I look forward to the day when we have a Labour Government who can realise that ambition.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this vital debate. He highlighted that the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have looked into this issue. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am the landlord of a property in the private rented sector.
Affordable housing is critical for my constituency. Many of my constituents live in very overcrowded conditions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) highlighted. Every week I am out on doorsteps, doing surgeries and visiting people where they live. There are many examples of four children sharing a bedroom, and of a family living in the living room and another in the bedroom. Families are experiencing severe overcrowding without any hope of moving out. I will touch on that in a moment. Too many people just cannot afford to rent in the private sector or to buy, given that rates are very high, and the Government have changed the definition of “affordable” repeatedly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) highlighted. Crucially, we are just not building enough housing.
The record of the affordable homes programme speaks for itself. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, on whose behalf the Minister is here to answer, set out to deliver 180,000 homes in 2021. It has already downgraded that forecast to 157,000 homes, but half of them will be for ownership, not rent. I am not someone who wants to get in the way of home ownership, but it is not even a distant dream for those of my constituents for whom renting privately is not an option. They just need somewhere to live, so we need social housing in London. Of course, the impacts of inflation and construction challenges put the figure of 157,000 at even more risk. The Government’s original intention was to build 300,000 new homes a year by the mid-2020s. Some of them were to be affordable homes, but we have not been given a figure, so I want to delve into that.
Let us pick up on the issue of definitions. Perhaps the Minister could take away the thought that we are conflating or confusing a multiplicity of markets. We have the full ownership market, but we also have affordable home ownership and shared ownership, which poses challenges for many people because they are liable for the whole property but own only part of the equity and pay rent on the rest. The term “affordable” was defined by the previous Mayor of London and former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), as 80% of private rents. Well, good luck with that in Hackney, where it is simply unaffordable for many people.
There are various definitions for key worker housing, depending on where the development is—the term is very ill defined in law and regulation. At least social rented housing has a rent escalator model set out in law, so tenants have an idea of what they will be paying. That has, of course, been capped because of inflation rates. I welcome that for residents, but it does also create a problem for properties in desperate need of investment. There is also, of course, the private rented sector. Although it has been subject to more regulation, there is nothing about the level of rent and it does not have anything like a rent escalator model. That means that tenants can find their rent going up exponentially after spending only a year in their home. We are increasingly seeing that across the piece in my constituency and throughout London.
Social housing is critical. There are people in Hackney who work hard in good jobs, such as the hospital porter I visited, who is renting a room in a private home. He was living with his daughter, and they rented a room each in a private home. When the private landlady put up the rent from £400 to £550 a month for each room, they could no longer afford to rent two rooms, so he was living with his then 17-year-old daughter—she is now nearly 20—in one private room, because he could not qualify for social housing. As he was not homeless, he would not even get into temporary housing—not that that is a pathway people want to go down.
Five years ago, if people had been in temporary housing for six months I would encourage them to hang on in there because a prized council or housing association property would eventually become available. It is now increasingly the case that people spend more than three years in temporary housing. Recently, a family I was dealing with were rehoused from Hackney to Wellingborough. There are other examples, with the excellent head of homelessness at Hackney Council, Jennifer Wynter, saying that this is the worst situation she has known in her long career, and warning all of us not to raise people’s hopes that a home in Hackney will be a real possibility.
The Department’s own figures show that homes built for social rent provide higher value for money than those built for ownership. This thoughtful Minister used to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee. If he looked at the figures, I think that he, along with the Secretary of State, could be an advocate in his Department for social renting housing. The problem is that the Government, who are not meeting their targets, are chasing numbers, which means fewer social rented properties for the money. We want to see more homes, but we need social rented housing, and it is no good building homes that people just cannot afford to live in. We have a sore need for such properties, yet the Government rejected the Public Accounts Committee’s recommendation to assess the demand for social rent.
Sometimes the Government also respond to reports in a confusing way. A recommendation report notes:
“The government will work with delivery agencies to confirm the 2021 programme’s capacity to deliver homes for Social Rent as part of the review”
of the delivery of housing, and that they
“will confirm the programme’s ability to deliver an increased proportion of homes for social rent to Parliament at the same time as confirming the programme’s overall delivery targets.”
I could read that in all sorts of ways. I like to read it positively, as saying that the Department is determined to see an increased proportion of social rented housing. I hope the Minister can clarify exactly what the Government mean in that response.
It is worth putting the challenge in Hackney in context. I make no apology for repeating these figures. There are currently 3,100 households in temporary accommodation, 51% of which—more than half—are housed outside the borough due to a lack of supply. There are 3,528 children in temporary accommodation. That is enough to fill eight primary schools and is equivalent to 1% of Hackney’s population. We are having to close primary schools because of falling numbers. Many of those families would love to send their children to school in Hackney, but they cannot live there because there are not enough permanent homes. I have had so many tragic conversations with constituents in my surgeries or the living rooms of their temporary accommodation. They think that if they hang on, they will get a property in Hackney, where their kids are still at school, but I have to say to them, “You are not going to be in Hackney for some years. You have a five-year tenancy somewhere else so you need to think about moving your children.” They are aghast and upset, but that is the reality. Children are being shuttled around to schools where there are places; they are not going to schools their parents choose.
Average waiting times for council and housing association housing for homeless households is now nine years for a three-bedroom property—of course, that is a notional figure—and 12 years for a two-bedroom property. That is a lifetime for a child. Children are growing up in massively overcrowded conditions. They often live in a single room in accommodation or, if they are lucky, a couple of rooms in a hotel. Sometimes, they are in temporary, rented accommodation elsewhere, but with no certainty and, even if their parents are bidding for properties, no real prospect of getting a home anywhere near any time soon.
Homelessness in the borough is increasing rapidly. The number of households seeking support increased by 44% between 2017-18 and 2021-22. Hackney Council anticipates that the number will continue to increase by about 8% a year. That is just one London borough, but I am sure my colleagues across London will say the same. It was interesting to hear that in Coventry the experiences are very similar. In Hackney, that would be considered cheap housing, compared with what we have to deal with.
I pay tribute to the Mayor of Hackney, Philip Glanville, who is doing his utmost to build council housing—affordable, secure homes—but for pretty much every one he builds, he has to have one for sale to cross-subsidise because there is not a Government subsidy, despite the Government’s own figures showing that investment in bricks-and-mortar subsidy is the most cost-effective way of delivering these homes.
I am sure the Minister is thoughtful enough to take on board the cost of poor housing to the Exchequer. The Public Accounts Committee looked at the private rented sector. In my constituency, ownership is out of reach for so many people—average house prices are at ridiculous levels—so people are living in the private rented sector. The National Audit Office concluded that 13% of privately rented properties—589,000 of them—pose a serious threat to their tenants’ health and safety. The Committee and the National Audit Office estimated the cost of that to the health service to be £340 million per annum, so it really is spend to save. I know it is difficult for any Department to sell that to the Treasury, but I am sure that if the Minister wanted to join forces with us on this issue, we could all work together to persuade the Treasury that spending money, investing in people’s homes and getting them on a stable footing is better for everybody.
This is not rocket science. We need more homes to be built, and we need to unblock the logjam that is stopping that. We do not have the time to go into all the reasons for that, but we need more social housing that is actually affordable for people on average wages—people who work hard every day but have no prospect of buying a home. Some even find it hard to afford council rent. There are issues there, but we certainly need council rented housing and housing association housing. We need pathways to home ownership, but every time someone buys under right to buy, that is another home lost to the local council or the housing association, and that is not a path that many people can pursue.
Many years ago, when I was a councillor in Islington, we would pay people about £16,000 to move from their council property to help them buy a property elsewhere, so they freed it up. That is actually good value for money. Who would have thought that the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee would be standing here saying, “Give tenants who want to move the money to do so”? Sure, home ownership is understandably a dream for many people, but it should not be a dream that is out of reach. We could free up the housing we have for those who have the wherewithal and ability to move into other homes.
We need better rights and stability for private tenants. People live in a home with a year’s tenancy, perhaps, but cannot be sure from year to year whether their children can stay at the same school. It is an upheaval in a family’s life. Now, increasingly, as people are evicted, rents are going through the roof, as many landlords exit the market. In summary, I believe firmly—I hope that the Minister concurs and will tell us how he will help to achieve this—that people need a safe, secure and long-term home as the foundation for their life and, crucially, the springboard for opportunity.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
There is a consequence to not building homes other than the numbers, and that is families living in temporary accommodation. That currently costs the UK taxpayer £1.6 billion a year. I do not know about other hon. Members in this Chamber, but I can think of a lot better ways to spend £1.6 billion.
I stand to speak out of desperation from what I see every single Friday at my advice surgery. I represent half of the London borough of Merton, which is certainly not the London borough under the greatest pressure for housing or temporary accommodation, but since last April even Merton has seen a 41% increase in the numbers of people in temporary accommodation. The numbers are tiny in comparison with the 3,000 in Hackney, but our numbers have increased from 243 to 343 units.
Also, when we use the word “temporary”—as I said earlier, language is important—at the moment it means five years. By the time we get to the end of five years, it will mean 10 years, or maybe 15 or 20 years—we just do not know. There is simply no way out of this appalling struggle.
Currently, in England, 99,000 families—including 125,000 children—live in temporary accommodation. That is an increase of 71% between 2012 and 2018, and a further 41% between 2018 and 2022. I give hon. Members those figures so that they have some idea of the scale of the problem we are experiencing. In June 2022, 26,130 of those families were placed in a borough outside their home, taking their kids out of school, their families away from their support networks, and individuals from jobs and away from NHS facilities that they might desperately need.
Once we remove a desperate, vulnerable family from their environment, there are consequences for the children in school attainment and attendance, and all sorts of other things. I say without any pleasure at all that, in the statistics of child mortality between 2019 and 2022, 34 children’s deaths were seen as a direct consequence of their temporary accommodation. I am happy to take the Minister to the temporary accommodation that many of the families that I represent have to live in.
I will talk to the House about Mr and Mrs N. They live in a shed in the garden of a house in multiple occupation. They have the benefit of the fact that it is in Streatham, so only around the corner from my constituency. They have two rooms and four children. The smell in the bathroom is so appalling that, put simply, no one would want to enter it. And the ants are obvious, crawling across the floor. Last week, when we beseeched the homeless department to move them somewhere else, the only place that it had to offer was in Reading. That family chose their ant-infested home over having to be moved many miles away from where they had any support or help.
I give that example not because it is unique, but because it is absolutely appalling. Unless we do something, we will have more children die of damp and mould growth, and we will have more desperate families. We will pay for that not just in human lives but in taxpayers’ money well into the next century. It is time to do something now.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing the debate. He made an excellent speech, as did all the other speakers.
It might not be obvious why I am going to take my contribution in this direction, but I am going to outline a situation that developed recently in my constituency, which has a link to housing and should be aired publicly. Today I spoke to Councillor Michael Baird, who represents North, West and Central Sutherland, one of the biggest wards in the United Kingdom. It is 1,800 square miles—the size of three Greater Londons and 18 Edinburghs. It is vast.
Michael has outlined to me a harrowing situation. He and his fellow councillors have one facility for the elderly in the entire ward—in that vast area. It is called Caladh Sona and is in the tiny village of Talmine on the north coast of Scotland. It has six care beds and, at the moment, four residents. NHS Highland has announced that it will close the facility in 12 weeks, and the residents will be moved to the two nearest homes, one of which is in Thurso, 47 miles away, whereas the other—if they can get beds—is in Golspie, 62 miles away. I think about those old people being moved and about their families, their loved ones, trying to see them. It is a lot harder with distances such as that.
I think also about the remaining staff. They have been offered jobs somewhere else, but will have to move from their community or make long commutes, sometimes in pretty dreadful winter weather. This is happening because the home cannot get the staff needed to run it, and that is because—this is where I return to the agenda—there is not the housing. If a house comes on the market on the north coast of Sutherland, it is snapped up as a holiday home or becomes an Airbnb. It is so like what everyone else is saying. If we cannot get the carers, we are in real trouble.
To echo what everyone has said this afternoon, if young people’s families cannot get an affordable home, they will not live there, and that means that school rolls drop and we have that old, dark monster of depopulation, which we had for far too long—for hundreds of years in the highlands. People up sticks and away. They go to Canada, Australia and America and never come back. That is one reason why we have a diaspora of Scots all over the world.
What can we do about it? It is ironic that we have one of the greatest sources of renewable energy, that is, land-based wind farms, in my constituency. Some of the money that the wind farms make could help the local authority—the Highland Council—a housing association or whatever to buy properties when they come on the market. An old expression we used to use has already been referred to: key worker housing. That is the key. Even if they come up for only five days a week, if we can offer a carer somewhere to live that they can afford, we will go some way to looking after the old people. As the oldest member of my party in this place, I can remember when houses were being built in the 1960s in my hometown of Tain. They were going up and it was great. There was hope that people would be housed, but the situation is very different today.
I will conclude with what the hon. Member for Slough said: we need a renewed national effort. By goodness, we certainly do. I am aware that housing is devolved, but I am sure that Members who belong to the Scottish Government’s party would admit that there is a major problem, just as hon. Members have described this afternoon. There has to be a renewed national effort. It has to involve all the nations of the United Kingdom, and we have to get it going, because if we do not, we are going back to the bad old days of our past. That is something that we thought was dead, buried and gone forever, but it seems to have come back. Action has to be taken.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this important debate and on the compelling speech with which he opened it. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for participating this afternoon and for a series of powerful speeches.
The debate has covered a range of concerns, many relating to the housing crisis more widely, but, on the specific matter of the affordable homes programme, most fell within two broad categories—namely, the performance of the programme over recent years and the more fundamental issues of its design and purpose. I want to address each of those in turn.
When it comes to the performance of the programme, there is clearly significant room for improvement. The comprehensive National Audit Office report on the operation of the AHP since 2015, which was published last year, details concerns on to a wide range of issues—including governance, transparency and oversight—many of which were echoed in a report published shortly afterwards by the Public Accounts Committee. I would be grateful if, as part of his response, the Minister could tell the House whether the Department has acted on the eight specific recommendations made by the NAO in its report, and could take the opportunity to update hon. Members on the steps that his Department committed to taking in its response to the PAC.
A particular criticism levelled at the programme by both the NAO and the PAC and referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough in opening the debate was the fact that targets were unlikely to be met. We know that, taken together, the 2016 and 2021 programmes are likely to miss their combined target by approximately 32,000 homes, with a shortfall of 9,000 starts under the 2016 programme compounded by a projected 23,000 shortfall in the current one. There is also a clear risk that the programme will fail to meet its sub-targets on supported accommodation and rural housing.
Opposition Members recognise that some of the factors undermining delivery on the targets are entirely out of the Government’s control, but there are others—such as local planning authority capacity and the need for funding and financing mechanisms to support providers in upgrading their stock—that the Government could take more proactive steps to mitigate. Might the Minister provide us with some assurance this afternoon that the Government are at least actively looking at what more can be done in that regard? Can he also explain whether and, if so, how rules about grant funding under the current programme might be being made more flexible—not least in terms of increased grant funding per unit—with a view to sustaining the Department’s central forecast of 157,000 completions in the face of inflationary pressure?
Lastly, when it comes to assessing the overall performance of the programme, effective scrutiny is still very much hampered by the absence of transparency and open reporting. The Department has now committed to providing an annual report to Parliament on programme delivery, but might the Minister go further today and commit at least to having Homes England publish its annual AHP targets, as the Greater London Authority has already done?
Let me turn to the design and purpose of the programme. One of the more damning conclusions of the NAO report was that the AHP lacks strong incentives for housing providers to deliver affordable homes in areas of high housing need and high affordability pressure. I would be grateful if the Minister could therefore update the House on how the Department is improving the way it works with local authorities to address local need, and tell us whether any further measures are being explored to ensure that more grant-funded affordable housing flows to areas of high need.
Providing more homes in such areas is, of course, not the only wider Government objective in respect of which the current programme is falling short. To me at least, it simply beggars belief that both the Department and Homes England did not include any specific targets relating to emissions reductions in the 2021 programme, with the result that outside London the Government are financing the construction of new affordable homes that in all likelihood we will have to retrofit in years to come.
The Government have committed to exploring the cost and deliverability of additional net zero requirements, but only in a successor to the 2021 programme.
Valerie Vaz
My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. Does he agree that every new home should have a solar panel fitted when it is built?
Matthew Pennycook
There is a strong case for that. It is an issue—one of many—that we are exploring in detail. The situation speaks to a wider failure, which is the abolition of the zero homes standard by, I think, the coalition Government. We built tens if not hundreds of thousands of homes over recent years that we will have to retrofit at great cost. The least we can do is change the criteria the programme operates on, so that at least we build net zero-ready homes for which we will not have to do that in years to come. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what precisely is stopping changes being made to the programme to ensure, as the Greater London Authority has done, that all new grant-funded homes are net zero carbon and air quality neutral.
Those issues aside, there is the more fundamental and important question of whether the programme provides the right kind of homes to meet affordable housing need in England. The answer of Labour Members is a categorical no. We believe it is a problem that the programme has constrained the overall amount of grant funding available for sub-market rented homes while also failing to deliver an increase in the supply of low-cost home ownership properties. We believe it is a problem that the Government’s decision to prioritise the so-called affordable rent tenure of up to 80% of local market rents has squeezed the amount of programme funding available for new homes for social rent and ballooned the number of households in temporary accommodation and on local housing waiting lists, as well as the housing benefit bill, as a result. Those are not technical design flaws; they reflect political choices about what a national affordable housing programme should aim to achieve and whether its primary purpose should be meeting the needs of people on the lowest incomes.
There is a clear difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government on this matter. We believe the overriding purpose of a national affordable housing programme should be to provide as many genuinely affordable homes as possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch rightly argued. The Government believe, at least post-2018, that the purpose of such a programme is to provide—reluctantly —a small number of genuinely affordable social rented homes and a much larger number of sub-market rented and home ownership units that are branded as affordable, but, in practice, are anything but for many low-income households in swathes of the country. That is why—with the debasement of language we have seen in recent years in the concept of affordable housing—the Housing and Planning Minister could argue with a straight face in a debate that took place last week on the future of social housing that Conservative-led Governments since 2010 have outperformed the last Labour Government on affordable housing, despite the fact that the last Labour Government built over twice as many social homes as Conservative-led Governments since 2010 have managed, and that at no point over the past decade has annual social housing supply ever matched the levels delivered by the last Labour Government.
We want the performance of the affordable homes programme to improve between now and the general election, and I look forward to the Minister detailing the various ways in which the Government are attempting to achieve that. But as laudable an aim as fine-tuning the existing programme is, Labour is clear that a very different programme will be required in the future to markedly increase the supply of new net zero-ready, genuinely affordable homes to rent and buy, as is our aim. It is an aim based on a reassessment of the amount of grant funding directed toward sub-market rent and the building of social rented homes in particular; on a review of the scope of eligible sub-market products, not least the so-called affordable rent tenure; and on a reappraisal of whether there are better low-cost home ownership products than shared ownership.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions and thank the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for instigating the debate. We may have disagreements about the methods by which we ensure that people can enjoy the fruits of home ownership and have a roof over their heads, but I think we would all, collectively, irrespective of what side we are on in this Chamber, agree that it is absolutely vital to have a housing sector that supports those who need it and provides the platform for people to be able to aspire to move into home ownership. That has been the case for the past century, and it has been such a success within this country.
I start by acknowledging the underlining point made by a number of hon. and right hon. Members, which is that there are challenges at the moment, including those that have grown in the immediate term, such as inflation, the cost of construction and materials and labour challenges, which all create issues in ensuring that we can make progress on our shared objectives. If we are truthful, that is also set within the context—I am not seeking to make a particularly political point, as it has developed under successive Governments of all colours over the past 30 or 40 years—of the number of houses that are built in this country and, flowing from that, the number of people who can have access to them, and the number of people who can enjoy home ownership in general. I think we have made progress on that as a Government, but I know there is a keenness to go further in the years ahead.
The Government support ensuring that people have a place to live, a place to thrive, a place to grow and a place to bring up families, which, in many instances, will be through affordable housing and social rent, but we also inherently believe in the importance of home ownership as a moral end in itself, providing the ability for people to make choices, grow capital and pass assets on to their family over their lives. The comments in today’s debate have underscored the need for more homes of all tenures, whether to rent, to buy or to part buy, on the way, hopefully, to fully buying in time.
On the specifics of the affordable homes programme, the whole point of the programme, which has nearly £12 billion of taxpayer subsidy—we are taking money from people that they would otherwise be able to spend themselves—is that we recognise the importance of some of the points made in the debate. Launched in 2020, that nearly £12 billion support—£11.5 billion—represents a significant taxpayer subsidy for affordable housing and a clear commitment to delivering tens of thousands of homes for sale and rent throughout the country.
Social rent has been raised by a number of colleagues, and I will come to their specific points in the moment. We brought social rented homes into the scope of the affordable homes programme in 2018 and we affirmed our commitment to increasing the supply of social rented homes in the levelling-up White Paper, which was published last year, as well as to improving the quality of housing across the board, in both the private and rental sector. I will come on to that point in a moment, when I respond to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). We have changed the parameters for the affordable homes programme to support that commitment, which enables further increases in the share of social rental homes that we plan to deliver.
Furthermore, the affordable homes programme is committed to funding a mix of tenures, enabling developers to deliver mixed communities that will ensure that people can buy, part buy and rent where they need to. That is why we have kept a commitment to delivering homes for affordable rent, where rent is typically capped at 80% of the prevailing rate. Yet it is home ownership that we want people truly to benefit from, and we want people to benefit from it as much as is possible. We understand the difference that an increased sense of security can make to all aspects of someone’s life and the lives of their families. That is why home ownership is a fundamental part of the affordable homes programme and why there is a significant element of homes for shared ownership, which can help people staircase up.
Dame Meg Hillier
The Minister said some warm words there about the need for social housing. In response to the Public Accounts Committee report, the Government indicated that local authorities would have more say over the mix of tenure in their area. In areas like mine, where the real need is for social rented housing, that requires more Government grant compared with areas where low-cost home ownership is genuinely an option. In Hackney, with the price as it is, home ownership will be very difficult to achieve. Can he flesh out how local authorities can deliver what they know is needed in their area and how Government grant will follow those decisions?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. She is an assiduous follower of this issue. I know of all the fantastic work that she and her colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee do on this area and elsewhere. I fear I might not be able to give her an absolute answer, but I will try to provide as much information as I can. There is obviously a challenge, broader than the specifics of this debate, about the amount of money that the Government have; that is not particularly newsworthy. If I may make a tiny partisan point: the Labour party, if it ever gets into Government, will have to make more choices than Opposition spokesmen indicate when they respond to such debates. There will always be a challenge around how we prioritise funding, and what the trade-offs are to do that. The commitment from the Government is here, with the £12 billion contribution that has already been indicated for allocation.
When we come forward with further information about the affordable homes programme 2021-26, I hope we will be able to give greater clarity for those authorities that seek a particular mix of housing and to expand the number of affordable homes of whichever tenure. I also hope that some of the changes coming through in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will take effect, although that needs to complete its progress in the other place. We will have to see what the other place does to that Bill, which I hope will give local councils some ability to flex their approach in the area of housing.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister is right that, when it comes to designing an affordable homes programme, choices have to be made and trade-offs confronted, but does it not trouble him that, despite the fact that 50% of AHP funding under the current programme is allocated to low-cost home ownership, his own Department’s figures make it clear that grant funding under the last year of the previous Labour Government still delivered twice the number of low-cost home ownership units than the Government managed last year?
Lee Rowley
Before I answer that question, I hope the Chair will allow me a minute or two more than 10 minutes, given that we have a little bit of time, in order to answer these interventions.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. It is just a guideline, not a rule. The Minister can speak all the way until 3.57 pm, if he wishes.
Lee Rowley
I will not detain colleagues to that extent, but I am grateful for the confirmation that I can continue. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) is keen to make a comparison. The fundamental thing that we are trying to do at the moment is weigh up a series of very challenging economic circumstances, recognising the context of housing supply, which has been a challenge for the entirety of my life. We recognise that we have to make progress for the very reasons that right hon. and hon. Members have outlined over the course of the debate. It is so important to do so, given that housing supply affects and impacts the lives of real people.
Let me comment on individual contributions. The hon. Member for Slough, opening the debate, emphasised the importance of the property-owning democracy, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I hope we can make progress on that and also address some points made by other hon. Members. He also said that there should be greater clarity on the affordable housing programme going forward. Although I am not able to give that in today’s debate, we have said that we will come back in the spring with further clarity about what is happening; there is not a huge amount of spring left, so I hope it will not be too much longer before my housing colleagues in the Department will do so. I anticipate the Department being able to provide further information to the hon. Member and others in the coming weeks.
The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) raised a number of points about the inherent challenges in the housing market and of trade-off. During my brief tenure as the Housing Minister back in the autumn, we had a debate in this very place about some of the issues, and she spoke then with regard to Coventry specifically. I cannot talk about Coventry individually, but I will put on record, if hon. Members allow me, the progress that has been made in the past 13 years. I realise that many colleagues will not necessarily want to point to that, but it is important for balance that we do.
Two million homes have been built in this country since 2010, and almost 1 million people—over 800,000—have been helped into ownership through schemes such as help to buy. Some 630,000 new affordable homes have been built. Last year, the registered supply of new homes increased over the previous year by approximately 10%, and I believe that the last five years have seen some of the highest rates of property building for 30 years.
A number of colleagues raised home ownership. Crucially, after a pretty linear fall from the mid-2000s under Governments of all parties, home ownership has started to increase again for the first time in a number of years. The increase is incremental—the rate is up from 62.5% in 2016-17 to 64.3% in 2021-22—but it is a movement back in the direction of empowering people to own their own properties and obtain all the consequent benefits.
Dame Meg Hillier
The Minister talks about home ownership increasing, but that incremental increase can hardly be seen as a victory. His is the party that introduced right to buy to increase home ownership. I wonder what the percentage is for anyone under the age of 35. Will he acknowledge that the Government have totally failed that generation in this respect?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is not enough, but the whole point of trying to build more properties and of using programmes such as the affordable housing programme to bridge, where that is necessary, into home ownership through rent and part ownership is to boost those numbers. My point is not that there are no challenges—I acknowledged such challenges at the very top of my speech. It is to try to insert balance, if only into the record: some progress has been made over the last 13 years. A substantial number of properties have been built over that time—for home ownership, for rent and in the affordable sector—and most importantly, after a relatively clear-cut decline under Governments of all parties, the decline seems to have been arrested. There is a long way to go and there is absolutely the need for growth. I want everybody who wants to own their own home to have the opportunity to do so, but I hope that this is at least an indicator that we are moving, to an extent, in the right direction.
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), and would never dream of reading my phone when he is speaking. I was specifically texting—this is both the benefit and the tyranny of having mobile devices in a debate—about the point he had raised. I regret to tell him that I have been unable to get an answer in the 40 minutes since he spoke, but I will ask the Department to write to him. I will be honest with him: I do not know whether the Department has purview here, and I do not know any of the details of the problem that he highlighted. It is always a challenge for local communities when developers are unable to complete the properties that they have indicated they will. I know that causes issues. I have a similar one in the village of Tupton in North East Derbyshire, where the developer unfortunately went out of business and the site is now mothballed. North East Derbyshire District Council is working hard to try to move that issue on. I will endeavour to write to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale either way, and will see whether the Department can provide any advice or information about the point that he raised; I am grateful for his doing so.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) raised a number of incredibly important and detailed points, to which I will ask the Department and the Minister responsible to respond in detail. Part of the answer to some of her questions will, I hope, be answered by the further details that come forward in the next stage of the affordable housing programme, but I will ask for a letter to be provided to the hon. Lady with more detail about the specific questions that she highlighted.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden made an extremely powerful intervention about the challenges of temporary accommodation—an issue that we all are aware of. We all want standards, quality and conditions to improve. As a former councillor in central London, albeit a number of years ago, I am under no illusions about some of the challenges of temporary accommodation. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), has been clear that improvements are needed in this area and has indicated that further legislation will be forthcoming. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden for highlighting her concerns, and I hope the Department can make progress in the coming months and years.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made a very important point about the challenges of access to labour, particularly in rural areas due to geography and topography and the like. I am sorry to hear about the issues his constituents are experiencing. While housing is a devolved matter, it is important, and I am grateful that he has put on record those issues and the work he is doing to address them. He will be aware that, at least from an England perspective, we are seeking to legislate as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in order to offer councils the opportunity—which they do not have to take up; some will choose to, some will not—to vary council tax for second homes. That will hopefully put an additional tool in the arsenal of local authorities to respond, in England, to the local challenges he has raised.
The spokesperson for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, raised an important point about capacity in local planning authorities, which is an issue that the Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and I are both involved in. Within planning, nationally significant infrastructure projects fall under my aegis. That is different from the debate we are having today, but there are very live conversations within the NSIPs and major infrastructure realms. I know from my colleague the Housing Minister that it is the same with regard to capacity in local planning authorities and within the appeals process, where a number of applications end up in their final stages.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich raised a number of important points about green homes. We need to make progress on multiple different imperatives and initiatives. The part L uplift, which we brought in in the summer of 2021, constituted a 30% increase and improvement in standards. That is in place now and has been for almost a year. The transition period for the part L uplift ends shortly, meaning that all houses built from now on will be 30% more efficient than previously. That is a massive increase compared to a number of years ago. However, there is a trade-off here, and we are trying to work through the issues and make progress in all aspects.
The Labour party has spent much of this debate—reasonably, in my view—saying that we need more houses, and that they need to be affordable to own and rent. We agree, which is why we are trying to make progress in this area. We also need to make progress on the environmental agenda, but those things must be brought into balance. Every single time an hon. Member stands up in this place and says, “We just need this one thing added in”, we need to understand that there is cost involved. That is where we have to make considerations. The part L uplift is a great example: we are trying to make progress environmentally, while also trying to answer the question reasonably posed by hon. Members across this place as to how we increase housing supply in general. We hope we are striking the right balance.
Valerie Vaz
The Minister is doing a great job of expanding his speech. There is absolutely no cost to ensuring that there is an obligation for every new home built to have solar panels. Why does the Minister not look at that? My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), Labour’s Front-Bench spokesperson, has said that all these new houses have to be retrofitted. Surely the Minister can consider what can be done with new houses in terms of the environmental factors?
Lee Rowley
I understand the point that the right hon. Lady is making, but there is a cost to mandating solar panels on new properties: the cost that will be paid for the initial transaction. If right hon. and hon. Members want to see supply boosted, we have to accept that we have to set a balance; we are trying to do that by saying both that it is important to make progress with regard to the environmental imperatives that have been rightly highlighted and—to answer the exam question—to get the kind of supply that everybody in this debate wants to see.
I gently caution hon. Members not to be too prescriptive regarding the technology we use. Although solar panels will be appropriate in many instances—I would guess the majority of instances, as a non-expert and a non-surveyor—they will not be the solution to reducing the carbon footprint of every single new property built. We should all collectively accept that solar panels will not be a useful or effective way to spend money in that cohort—in situations where, for whatever reason, including the wrong aspect, the wrong part of the country or the wrong geography. We should seek not to impose a requirement in that regard but instead to say, “If you have that amount of money within the system to be able to spend on making that building greener, the Government will not be prescriptive that you have to do something that isn’t necessarily going to be effective, but we will encourage you to use that money to make it effective, be it in a different form of technology or doing it in a different way.”
Mr Dhesi
I thank the Minister for giving way and I think he will have heard the points about quality, size and environmental standards, and why it is important for there to be a focus on them; I appreciate his accepting that. Will he also confirm for us all, and for the record, when the revisions to the 2021 plan will be published?
Lee Rowley
We expect to be able to say more on the affordable housing point in the coming weeks ahead—in spring. I hope that answers his question. I will conclude—
Mike Amesbury
I will be brief. I recently addressed chief executives of housing associations from across the north, and the one big concern was around section 106 and the replacement—the infrastructure levy. I think that about 47% of affordable homes are built that way at the moment. What reassurances can the Minister give to the sector that that will be the case, and even better? The associations’ final ask was around section 21. When can we see the announcement on no-fault evictions—the pledge that has been made by the Government over and over again?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. On the final point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been clear in the other Chamber that we intend to bring forward more information about the rental sector relatively soon. I hope that answers his that question.
Obviously, the key underlying way in which we can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about the infrastructure levy is to get the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill through. It depends what the other place does to that Bill. There are some quite substantial provisions, which I believe the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich went through in Committee a number of months ago; I had the opportunity to contribute to that process very briefly. We will see what the other place does to that Bill. No doubt it will come back here. Once we get the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill through, we will be able to make progress on moving away from section 106 and towards an infrastructure levy, which I hope will capture more of what we seek to do.
To close, I thank the hon. Member for Slough again for requesting and instigating this debate. It is absolutely the case that everybody here feels very strongly—rightly—about the need to make further progress on housing in the years ahead, for precisely the reasons that have been articulated in this debate today. It is so important for our constituents, for transforming lives and for supporting the most vulnerable. We have all heard today about some of the challenges, but I hope that I have been able to rebalance things, at least to some extent, by highlighting the opportunities and some of the progress that has been made. Housing, affordable housing and home ownership are vital to our communities all across the country, from North East Derbyshire, where I am from, to the constituencies of right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate today. We must make progress for precisely the reasons that have been articulated in this debate. I hope we can continue to do that in the months and years ahead.
Mr Dhesi
I am extremely grateful, Mr Hollobone, for your excellent chairing of this passionate and powerful debate. The issue is critical for many of our constituents.
As passionate and powerful as the debate has been, I fear that the Minister must be feeling very lonely. Apart from his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), not a single member of his party has come to call for the urgent action that is required. I hope that the Minister will take the need to implement the eight NAO recommendations back to his Department. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), pointed out, they need to be looked at seriously and actioned. The Homes England grants for affordable homes are important and helpful, as we have found in Slough, but they are not sufficient to meet the scale of the problem.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi). She is a passionate advocate for her constituents and gave powerful examples of the planning problems for all in her constituency, and of the wider planning shambles. I hope that the Minister and his Department will look into that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) was previously a shadow Minister for local government and spoke with a great deal of experience and authority. He highlighted heartbreaking cases of children living in cramped accommodation and the problems of overcrowding, which we also face in Slough. I am extremely grateful to him for highlighting those issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who is Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, spoke about the change in the definition of “affordability” and the multiplicity of markets. She also spoke about waiting times, which are so onerous for our constituents. She highlighted that, in her constituency, there is a nine-year wait for a three-bed property. Similarly, many of my constituents in Slough have to wait more than eight years to get a council property. That has an impact on children in particular.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) shone a light on the scale of the problem, the £1.6 billion cost to the taxpayer of failure and the fact that “temporary” currently means at least five years in her patch. It is a similar example to the ones highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and by Members from the west midlands. People are being placed outside of their borough, sometimes hundreds of miles away where they have no support network, and problems were raised around damp and mould.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)—I think he is my hon. Friend because we share a corridor and often have conversations on such matters—spoke about the complexities of the use of Airbnb and why we need a renewed national effort on housing. Otherwise, we all fear that we will go back to the bad old days of the past.
Given where we are at the moment and that targets will be missed by tens of thousands, I hope that the Minister will take back the message that we need to focus on this issue because it has a direct impact on the quality of life of our constituents, many of whom are living in rodent-infested, damp or mouldy properties. For them there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel, and that is why the Government must focus on affordable housing. I thank you once again, Mr Hollobone. I hope that we will hear some good news this spring, as the Minister has promised.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Affordable Homes Programme.
Energy Suppliers and Consumer Rights
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered energy suppliers and consumer rights.
It is an honour to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased that we have time today—although I suspect that it might be cut off and restarted—to debate this vital topic and hear from the Government what they can do to assist our constituents. I acknowledge the Members who are here. I thank the Minister for reaching out to me before today in the spirit of co-operation, and I hope we can make productive use of the time.
If there is one thing that should always have been clear—if it is was not before this winter, it absolutely is now—it is that being an energy consumer is not optional. People who are off grid are hugely in the minority—the Minister will probably be relieved to know that I do not intend to talk about them and delays to fuel payments today. But for most people—millions of people—in the UK, the only way to heat their home, have light at night and keep their food fresh is to be a consumer via an energy company. We have learned in the past year that many energy companies are simply failing those consumers, and there is shockingly little by way of consumer rights in this area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. In Northern Ireland, we have only two gas suppliers—there should be more. If there are more, there is competition, and if there is competition, prices come down. Does she agree that competition ensures that our constituents get better value?
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. This is a 30-minute debate, so we will not get a speech from him. I agree that consumers need choice. Until this winter, many Members probably did not know the differences between the energy markets in Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK.
I came to this issue largely through casework. I saw a puzzling trend of constituents seemingly being overcharged and struggling to find redress, so we started asking people more widely about their experiences with their energy companies, and that really brought the cases rolling in. The issue is obviously not limited to my constituency of North East Fife; indeed, it would be strange if it was.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. It is certainly not just in her constituency; it is everywhere. I have a constituent called Jacqueline, who is a pensioner and fell into debt of £140 with OVO Energy, which sent round bailiffs. She broke down in tears and gave them a cheque there and then. Actually, the company was not reading her meter, and she is now £2,500 in debt. She is on a state pension, so she does not know what to do. That kind of callous behaviour by energy companies should not be tolerated. We must do something about it.
Wendy Chamberlain
That is not dissimilar to some of the cases I have seen in North East Fife. It seems to be that if we speak to a different person at the end of the phone at a different time, we get a completely different outcome. That is simply not acceptable.
Citizens Advice has said that there was a 230% increase in energy complaints to its Extra Help Unit this winter. For the first time, that has made energy the top advice issue. This is not confined to Oxford West and Abingdon or North East Fife; it is taking place throughout the UK.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
There is also a broader issue with the Government energy rebate during the winter period. People who live in park homes receive the energy rebate at the behest of the park home owner—they do not get a direct energy rebate from the energy company—but they are still potentially liable to the energy company. What would the hon. Lady suggest that the Minister do to ensure that park home residents receive the benefit of the energy rebates that the Government have made available, and to ensure that energy companies and park home owners are held accountable so that the energy rebates go to the residents of the park homes?
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I, too, have park homes in my constituency, and that issue has come up. At the moment, we are completely dependent on the good will and good conduct of park home owners when it comes to ensuring that those living in park homes get their rebates. We need to consider the legislative agenda. The Energy Bill, which I will come to, had its First Reading in the House today and we should certainly be thinking about that.
What I am trying to say is that contacting an MP has sometimes become the only route for constituents who seek redress; as constituency MPs, we all know that. That is widespread. We can see that something in the system is failing, which is why I secured this debate. The Government have a role in consumer protection and the energy market. Just today, two new Bills have been introduced to the House: one, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, is explicitly about consumer rights, and the other is the Energy Bill. Both are about making our system fit for the future. Over the last year, we have seen that the Government have a role in ensuring that the energy market is working for consumers and that people can afford to pay their bills.
I would like to outline some of the problems that my constituents have been having before I return to the question of consumer rights. Overcharging has already been mentioned. A quarter of all the correspondence that I have received has been about that, which suggests that a huge number of people in the country—thousands, if not hundreds of thousands—must have the same issue. We know that energy bills have gone up and that there has been action to help people cope, but this issue is not about that. It is about energy companies billing families huge sums of money for energy that they have not used and about families doing their best to manage the cost of living—keeping costs down, putting food on the table and keeping afloat—and finding themselves facing debts of hundreds of pounds.
The overcharging comes in two forms, and both are deeply harmful. Imagine that you are a direct debit customer who pays bills monthly, accruing credit on your account. Those payments might have gone up when you renewed your contract last year, but that is fine because you planned for it. You budgeted. It has been difficult, but you made it work because that is what we all have to do. You have done your best to reduce your energy usage to make sure you did not end the year in debt. You have done everything that you reasonably can—[Interruption.]
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. A Division has been called in the House. The sitting will adjourn until 4.22 pm if there is one vote and 4.32 pm if there are two votes.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The hon. Member has already had seven minutes, so the debate can last until 4.55 pm.
Wendy Chamberlain
I will move on quickly. I was outlining some of the issues with direct debits and giving the example of someone paying by direct debit whose payments may have gone up, but who was basically managing. But imagine if, despite that, their energy provider increased their direct debit payments, without their knowledge or any discussion about it, and they only found out because their carefully arranged budget was no longer in balance—they did everything right and were suddenly in debt anyway.
That is what is happening to people. I have seen a number of cases in North East Fife. One of my constituents had £900 in credit, yet their energy supplier is taking more. This surely is not right, and it is surely not the kind of practice we would accept. I urge the Minister to call this behaviour out and take proactive steps to prevent it from happening to other families and individuals.
The second form of overcharging is arguably even more egregious. This is where customers are receiving bills from energy companies for energy they have not used. Again, we are talking about hundreds of pounds being demanded, with threats of enforcement measures and huge amounts of distress as a result. I pay tribute to my casework team, who have been working these cases and providing fantastic support to my constituents. They try to understand what went wrong, but sometimes that is very difficult, as people are dealing with an opaque system and too often being told that their energy bill is final.
We have had some success in proving that bills are wrongly being charged, but even then energy companies do not always just cancel the bill. One of my constituents paid her £700 bill for fear of enforcement measures, and not many people have that sort of money just lying around. It is a stretch. Even now, the company has repaid only £500, insisting that £200 sits in the account as credit. That is £200 wrongly taken from my constituent that ought to be paid back.
As for the causes of these issues, some of it comes down to, arguably, predatory sales calls—lies are told and cooling-off periods are not respected. Some of it seems to be errors in the system, which when highlighted ought to be corrected, not defended. A lot of it seems to come down to smart meter issues. When they work, they are excellent, but when they do not, they are simply terrible. I fear the Government are trying to run before they can walk with the Energy Bill. They are pushing ahead with the roll-out and encouraging more use of smart appliances without getting the fundamentals right first.
Let us start with something basic: smart meters need to be connected to either the internet or a data signal. My constituency of North East Fife is rural. It is not as rural as some places, but rural enough that many properties are still without reliable internet access and there are mobile signal blackholes. Smart meters simply do not work in those conditions, but energy companies are too often refusing to listen. Another one of my constituents strongly argued against having her traditional meter replaced, knowing the signal issues at her property. The energy company ignored her and did it anyway. What a surprise: the smart meter does not work. Not only is she unable to monitor her usage, but her company, E.ON, is now charging her to reinstall the old-style meter.
Other constituents are able to have smart meters and, indeed, want them to help to keep on top of their bills, but even when the internet connection is good, smart meters still break. When they break, energy companies do not seem to want to replace them. One constituent’s meter stopped working last October and, despite requesting one, has not had a replacement from SSE since. In the meantime, she cannot monitor her usage and her company cannot take readings. As a result, the company is taking larger and larger sums from her bank account based on estimates.
Another constituent—a vulnerable pensioner—has been waiting five months for a replacement gas meter. She was told that she could go outside and read the old-style meter in the interim, but she is disabled—she simply cannot do that. The list goes on, and the longest waits for replacements that I am aware of are well over a year—month after month of knowing that prices are going up and not knowing how much it is costing, and energy companies erring on the side of caution to their benefit, taking huge sums from customers. Of course, all those problems are compounded when we talk about vulnerable customers. I welcome the fact that Ofgem has a vulnerability strategy; but again, from the casework I have received, more clearly needs to be done.
I am aware of time and have not reached my main point yet, so I will be brief. Two things come through in the casework. First, billing is confusing for many people. Not only is it fair for customers to understand their bills; it is better for the market when consumers can compare bills and charges between different energy companies, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) alluded to. For that, I ask the Government to consult with stakeholders and disabled people to look at putting bills into a standard form. Secondly, priority service registers are not working effectively. More needs to be done to make it easy for vulnerable customers to identify themselves to energy companies, and companies ought to be proactive in looking out for those consumers. I am sure that all of us, as MPs, have encouraged constituents to get on those lists.
The thread that links all these issues together—and the reason why I am having to help constituents with energy issues, as I am sure everyone else here too—is simply the utterly abysmal customer service and the lack of clear consumer rights. Most consumer-facing industries have some form of consumer charter or code of practice. It exists in customer service and for aviation passengers, for water consumers under Ofwat and in broadcasting under Ofcom, but it does not exist when it comes to energy. What is there is incredibly basic and not helpful for individuals at all. Energy companies are regulated through Ofgem, and one of their licence conditions is that consumers must be treated fairly—that is it. That does not tell us anything. A Q&A document from Ofgem sets out some situations where a customer could be entitled to £30 compensation, such as when their smart meter breaks and is not investigated within five working days. Considering the sums of money being charged and the waiting times for replacements, that is a completely ridiculous method of enforcement and no incentive to companies to protect their consumers.
I am not criticising Ofgem. Indeed, I welcome last week’s code of practice relating to pre-payment meters and its plans to consult on further standards. I am grateful that Ofgem spoke to me at short notice on Friday. The new system operator being set up under the Energy Bill will not help when it comes to consumer rights. Its goals are controlling cost, moving to net zero and ensuring our energy independence. These are all welcome, but leave a gaping hole when it comes to basic rights and service. Clearly, energy companies are falling far below any ordinary standard of service to consumers, and the need to keep adequate suppliers in the market means that Ofgem cannot threaten to take licences away from all of them, because bad practice is simply too widespread.
Does the Minister agree that energy consumers—that is, all of us—should have the same rights as people taking a plane or running their tap? Does she agree that the energy market can function properly only when our consumers know their rights and are empowered to enforce them? Does she agree that it is unconscionable for energy companies to be treating their consumers in the way they are today? I want every single issue from my constituency sorted out, and I hope the Minister will engage with that and the energy companies too, but we can be proactive and solve the root cause. I am asking the Government to consult on a new consumer rights charter for energy bills that will be communicated widely and where good companies can be accredited, and which will make our energy market work for consumers as well as for responsible suppliers. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
It is a pleasure to be here under your stewardship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this incredibly important debate. We are going to get together to have a further conversation, so I have listened with great interest to all her comments.
I take the role of Minister for energy consumers and affordability incredibly seriously. At least once a day I comment on the fact that affordability is at the heart of all that we do. It is vital to bring down energy bills and ensure that consumers are protected. One of my key drivers is to ensure that the vulnerable are not made more vulnerable. I regularly meet the chief executive of market regulator Ofgem. I spoke to vulnerable consumers at a summit yesterday, and continue to engage with lots of stakeholders, including Citizens Advice, and other suppliers.
The Government have made it clear to Ofgem that we expect it to be robustly enforcing the rules aimed at ensuring that suppliers treat their customers fairly. Suppliers should continually strive to adopt and embed a customer-centric culture. That relates to how suppliers behave, provide information and carry out customer service processes. Ofgem’s guaranteed standards of performance exist to ensure that suppliers provide automatic compensation when domestic customers’ switches are delayed, when customers are erroneously switched, when issuance of the final bill is delayed, when there are missed or late appointments, or if a supplier does not send an engineer who has the skills and experience to carry out the planned work.
If a customer thinks their meter is not working properly, the supplier should agree a timescale with the customer to complete the work. If a supplier does not do what it said it would, it should give the customers £30 compensation, as the hon. Member mentioned. For prepayment meter faults, if the consumer cannot get any electricity or gas, and they think the meter is faulty, they should contact the supplier. The supplier should come round and repair or replace it within three hours, or four hours on a weekend or bank holiday.
If the consumer thinks their meter is faulty but the power supply is still working, they should still contact their supplier, and the supplier should arrange a future appointment within three or four hours. If a supplier does not do what it said it would, it should give the customer £30 compensation. Suppliers must pay £30 compensation to customers within 10 days of breaching an individual guaranteed standard. If it fails to pay the customer in time, it must pay an additional £30. I listened closely to what the hon. Member said, and I know we will have further discussions about the suitability of this arrangement.
Suppliers are required to submit complaints data to Ofgem on a monthly and quarterly basis. Suppliers also publish domestic complaints data on their websites, including the top five reasons for complaints, and the measures they are taking to improve how they handle customer complaints. If the customer remains unhappy with the outcome of their complaint, they can approach the energy ombudsman. Ombudsman Services is an independent body that provides dispute resolution, and it is free for consumers. Ombudsman Services can investigate and, where appropriate, oblige the supplier to rectify the situation.
One area that needs to be improved relates to prepayment meters. We all heard about the incredibly appalling practices that occurred with the forced fitting of prepayment meters. The Government have made their strong feelings clear on the issue. I am glad that suppliers have now signed up to a more robust set of standards. The new code of practice will help, but we still need to ensure that we work together to deliver an energy market that works for everyone.
Ofgem has acted to improve protection for vulnerable households, increased scrutiny of supplier practices and introduced redress where meters were wrongfully installed. We have been crystal clear that fitting a prepayment meter by force for any customer must be an absolute last resort, after all other options have been completely exhausted. The Government will monitor the behaviour of suppliers very closely and will not hesitate to intervene if necessary.
On the issue of understanding energy bills, Ofgem has produced a short video and short written guides for households. Suppliers are required to maintain a telephone support line and to provide an explanation of the customer’s bill in plain and intelligible language. Again, I look forward to meeting the hon. Member to discuss that further and to discuss whether there are more things that we should and could be doing. There are resources such as Citizens Advice’s big energy saving network, which is a network of trained advisers who help people to understand energy use in the home and how to get the support that they are entitled to.
I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife for securing the debate. I can reassure her and parliamentary colleagues that the Government expect energy suppliers to provide good customer service and to look after their vulnerable consumers. The Secretary of State and I have made it clear that that is a top priority for Government. As I mentioned, I meet regularly with Ofgem and key stakeholders, such as Citizens Advice and the ombudsman, to discuss the experiences of consumers and how they can be improved. When suppliers are providing poor customer service, they should expect customers to switch to a better supplier. Although the market for switching for a better price is only just restarting after the gas price crisis, some customers have continued to switch to find better customer service. I look forward to meeting with the hon. Lady to discuss these matters further.
Question put and agreed to.
Motorways: Litter
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now move on to a rubbish debate—about litter on motorways. I call Sir Mike Penning to move the motion.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered litter on motorways.
On a very serious subject, hopefully we can also have some calming measures, if you know what I mean, Mr Hollobone. Other colleagues have indicated to me that they would join the debate this afternoon, so I wonder whether you could bear with them, Mr Hollobone, if some of them arrive a little later.
My constituency is boundaried by the M1, M25 and A41. The state of the rubbish on those motorways is an embarrassment to me as the constituency’s MP, and as an MP in general. I freely admit that the rubbish has probably been thrown out of the windows of cars—by passengers as well as drivers. Some of it comes off the back of refuse lorries that, inappropriately, do not have the correct tarpaulins to stop that happening.
Whatever the reason, the rubbish will start to disappear in the next few weeks. It is not going anywhere—it is just that the grass and weeds are growing, and they will cover it up. It is still not only a hindrance but a danger to our wildlife. Some of the areas where the motorways go are areas of outstanding natural beauty, on which wildlife very much rely. In my spare time, I love bird watching. It frightens me to look at some of the nests—especially at the end of the seasons, when we start clipping our hedgerows and other such things—and see what the birds think is safe to put into their nests.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate. Anyone who knows me will know that littering is my biggest bugbear; it is infuriating. A key concern that highways workers have relayed to me is the health and safety risk that litter poses to them when they have to clean it up. Does he agree that the issue is not given enough consideration?
Sir Mike Penning
I think not only that it is not given enough consideration, but that it is a national disgrace. I specifically picked on motorways because of the legal responsibility Highways England, the Highways Agency or whatever it wants to call itself today—it has renamed itself several times since I was the Roads Minister. I do not know why it has spent so many thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money renaming itself. If the brand is decent, it should not be renamed. If the brand is bad, it should be renamed, and that seems to be exactly what Highways England or the Highways Agency—Highways something—has been doing. It has a legal responsibility for its network, which includes not just motorways but some A roads.
We should have better enforcement and use the technology that we have. If we can prosecute people for going two or three miles per hour over the speed limit—I am all for that; I was a Transport Minister—we can use the same cameras to prosecute people who throw litter. I am sure that, like me, colleagues have seen footage of people on the motorway driving down the road—there is the car, there is the numberplate, there is the face, there is the phone—and exactly the same technology can be used for people chucking litter out of the car.
Penalties almost certainly need to be stronger. Perhaps we should do something not dissimilar to what I did when I was the Minister and we brought in the driver awareness course. Fines and points were not working, but the evidence showed that drivers actually drive better and slower after they have done such a course.
At the end of the day, we have to do two things. We have to educate people through courses such as the driver awareness course, and we have to make sure the person or organisation responsible for these highways takes action. I picked the motorways because it is not like in our constituencies, where it could be a borough council, a district council, a county council or a unitary authority; there is a single body legally responsible for motorways and some A roads under section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We have got to the ridiculous stage where individuals—I will talk about John Read and the Clean Up Britain campaign—are almost certain to use section 91 of the Act to take National Highways to court. We have the right under the Act to say, “You are not doing what you are supposed to be doing, which is to clear up the mess on our highways.”
When I applied for this debate, I was thrilled by not only by the excellent paper produced by the House of Commons Library, but by John Read of Clean Up Britain, Policy Exchange and the RAC Foundation. I also thank the Sunday Express for helping to highlight this issue last weekend. They have all come together to say, “What can we do to stop this blight, predominantly on the English countryside, getting worse and worse?”
As I said earlier, the litter will soon start to be covered over as the plants grow, but in the autumn, when the frost comes, there it will all be. What surprised me enormously was some of the commentary coming from National Highways. It produced a lengthy paper saying that it regularly checks the highways, and that more than 60% do not have any rubbish on them. All I can say is that they should have gone to Specsavers, or other places that are available, to check their eyesight when they drive back and forth to work on our highways. Litter is a danger not only to our wildlife—I have seen aluminium tins on the side of the road that have been there for so many years that they are starting to degrade, and plastic does not degrade in the same way—but to the staff clearing it up, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said. There have to be road closures and it has to be done safely.
Interestingly, other countries seem to have solved this problem quite well. Any of us who go on holiday this summer to Germany, France or Spain will see that their highways are not covered in trash. Many people from this country will go to Florida, which has large five or six-lane roads. The hedges and grass are not covered in trash, and any litter is certainly not all chopped up when the grasscutters come along and it has not been picked up.
We have to ask ourselves why. Is it a cultural thing, or is it because the organisation that is legally responsible for clearing up rubbish is doing so? Frankly, if someone has broken the law and they get a community project, I cannot think of a better way of paying back into the community than being in a team that goes out and safely clears the rubbish from the sides of our roads. When I was in the Minister’s position, I was told that that was not possible because it was not safe. I used to be the Health and Safety Minister as well, at a different time, and it could be made safe. It is safe for workers to do it, and some of the stuff they have to pick up is truly horrible. We will not go into that in this debate, but Members can imagine what gets thrown out of car windows.
The question has to be, why is National Highways not taking this issue seriously? The organisation cannot be taking it seriously, because it has given contractors contracts but is not monitoring them. Following a freedom of information request to Mr John Read, National Highways came back and said:
“We don’t undertake audits of our contractors’ work for litter clearance.”
How do they know that 60% of the roads are clear if they are not monitoring their own contracts? It baffles me.
Under the Secretary of State, the Department for Transport has introduced key performance indicators for National Highways, but litter is not one of them; it is just part of something else and seen as not that important. I say to the Minister that it is important. How can we have a key performance indicator for the contract issued to National Highways by the Secretary of State that does not take into consideration the legal responsibility it has to the public? This is public money being spent on behalf of the public through the Secretary of State.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Many of my constituents express many of the concerns that he has already outlined. On the point about legal responsibilities and KPIs, we also have an issue that is applicable not just to motorways, but to A roads. In my constituency, we have the A2 and the A20, where there is general confusion about who is legally responsible for cleaning the litter from the hard shoulder and the verges. Transport for London often says that it is the local council’s responsibility, and local councils often dispute that, because they are obviously Transport for London roads.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that alongside strengthening the KPIs, we also need to have legal clarity about who is responsible for litter on motorways and our A roads? I echo his enthusiasm for encouraging community volunteer litter pickers who want to go out and help, but who are told no because of health and safety.
Sir Mike Penning
My hon. Friend has made several points that I completely agree with. As I said earlier, National Highways is responsible not only for motorways; it also has some A roads in my own part of the world. What was the M10 is now the A414, but it still has responsibility for that road. I do not think the organisation knows that, because it has not been anywhere the road since the day it ceased to be a motorway. I wrote to the Secretary of State and what I think was then known as Highways England, asking whether there was any chance that it could come along and pick up some of the signage that is lying on the roadsides, getting rusty and acting as a blight on animals and on the safety of someone who has pulled off the side of a road in an emergency. The signage is still there today.
The point that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) is making about who is responsible is actually quite crucial. I mean, when I was the Roads Minister, I did not realise that with the M10—I live right next to the M10, although I know it is now the A414—the Highways Agency had kept responsibility for it and several other A roads. So that could be resolved very simply by the Minister dropping our hon. Friend a line to say that “the legal responsibility for the A2 lies with X”. I am sure that the Minister could get his officials to do that; that is what I might have done if I was the Minister. But who knows?
Regarding the other point that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made, there are lots of volunteers out there today, going out and picking litter up; I have some in my own constituency and they do a fantastic job. There is that issue and there is actually the payback issue. People who are blighting my community in myriad different ways and who may get a community order should have to be supervised out there to clean the roads.
If anyone goes to Florida, they will drive down wonderful, clean roads. One of the reasons is that Florida actually uses people who are incarcerated to go and clear the roads. They are not dangerous criminals, but they are people in for short-term sentences. Of course they are not chained up or anything like that, but if they scarper—the sort of language that my grandmother would have used—they will eventually be found and at the end of the day they would not have any parole. They are not going to be attacked if they scarper, and they are already starting the payback. In our open prisons, why could we not have that today in parts of the country? It would be slightly difficult with some of the open prisons in, say, Norfolk, because there are no motorways in Norfolk. Payback and should mean payback.
The Minister might say to me, “Well, actually, the contracts are set in stone over a period of time with National Highways and the KPI is set.” But if he looks carefully at the legislation, he will see that the Secretary of State has the powers at any time to deviate the contract, so the KPIs could be changed.
I think this is an issue of national importance. We can talk about it being rubbish, or trash, but we have some of the most beautiful countryside in the world, in my opinion. We should cherish it. There are people demonstrating out there, yesterday and today, because they passionately believe—I do not agree with their motives and how they are trying to do it, but I do agree that we have to protect our countryside.
Over the years, we have put lots of roads right the way through some of our countryside, and that countryside is being blighted, day in and day out. Frankly, looking at the correspondence, particularly from National Highways—I am sorry, Minister, but I do not think they get it. They just talk to me. Among the briefings, they are talking about the responsibility of local authorities. Well, no local authority in the country has responsibility for clearing up the motorways. They—National Highways —have it. The title of this debate was specific, so as not to have that debate about local government. The narrative here is purely about National Highways.
There are lots of things that are probably not fully in the Minister’s bailiwick, and I share his frustration with some of that, because I used to sit in that chair and think, “I’d love to have done that,” and, “I would love to do this.” But if we have the will, we have the way. Fines need to be increased. If people want to throw stuff out of car windows—some of it the most abhorrent products that we do not particularly want to discuss today—they should be penalised for it.
Similarly, however, if an organisation has the legal responsibility in law, set by this place, that it is their job to clear up that mess—go and give them some powers if we want to use the cameras in a way in which we can actually enforce the issue. They cannot cop out of this; it is actually in statute whose responsibility it is. The KPI can be changed, so that the regulator can step in and actually say, “You’re not fulfilling your contracts,” because if that does not happen, we will have individual members of the public taking this organisation—National Highways, which is funded by the British taxpayer—to court for a breach of the Act. To me, that is a crying shame, but if it happens I will fully support that commitment to go to the magistrates courts.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on securing this debate. I agree with almost everything he said.
Litter is something I have repeatedly raised concerns about with National Highways and, previously, Highways England. It is unacceptable for my office to have to repeatedly raise the issues of litter, lack of effective maintenance and general poor standards of work with National Highways. I am pleased that the Transport Committee, which I am a member of, recently wrote to Nick Harris, chief executive of National Highways, about some of these issues, particularly the nearly 40% of the strategic road network that either has widespread litter or is heavily affected by litter.
Many of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South frequently raise concerns with me about the disgraceful levels of litter and the bad impression that people get when visiting or travelling through our area on the strategic road network. One of my constituents said to me recently when I was out in the community that one of their relatives had visited from overseas and was completely shocked to see the standard of our highways and the scale of litter accumulating at the side of the road. As my right hon. Friend said, overseas we do not see the same scale of littering at the side of the highway.
Staffordshire is at the heart of the UK, with several key routes passing through it. We have seen major problems with litter and poor maintenance on this road network, and there are concerns with our motorway network, particularly on the M6 and around its junctions. The issue is not reserved to the motorway network. There are also major concerns about trunk roads, which are also under the auspices of National Highways. The A50 and A500 cut right through the middle of Stoke-on-Trent, and that has a significant impact on the surrounding communities. While these routes provide important strategic connectivity, they also cause many problems, including air pollution and litter.
The problems with litter have at times reached epic proportions, and I am extremely concerned about some of the wider maintenance standards, such as with vegetation management. The severe lack of grass cutting by National Highways has resulted in roundabouts and verges in the centre of Longton and Meir being totally neglected. Given that these roads cut through predominantly urban areas, standards of maintenance need to be different from those used in more sparsely populated areas. National Highways currently conducts only an annual cut, meaning verges become totally overgrown and completely filled with litter.
The lack of effective vegetation management has resulted in significant litter build-ups gathering in the overgrowth and attracting vermin. Following our calls, Stoke-on-Trent City Council has thankfully stepped in to cut some of these areas, including the most sensitive locations in town centres, which are still the responsibility of National Highways, but this really should not be happening. National Highways should take proper responsibility for the land that it owns.
Margaret Ferrier
On the point of vermin, littered food attracts wild animals such as mice, rats and foxes. Drawn so close to vehicles moving at speed, these animals have a higher risk of being killed. Many of them carry germs and disease, and it is not a nice job to have to clean up roadkill. Does the hon. Member share my concerns about the increased risk of animal deaths resulting from litter?
Jack Brereton
I agree that those are very serious concerns. Health and safety concerns were mentioned earlier regarding the impacts of the litter and the disease that could be carried by rats and other animals. That is a serious concern.
One of the things we have seen in our area because of the lack of effective maintenance is anti-social behaviour, with resultant massive build-ups of litter, including alcohol bottles and drug paraphernalia on National Highways land. As regards health and safety and the operatives who will have to remove some of that drug paraphernalia, that is extremely concerning. If there are syringes and things like that there, they will have to wear specialist safety equipment. I recognise that some projects have been undertaken to address some of the vegetation management in our area, but we need a far more comprehensive and proactive routine maintenance approach—and to a much higher standard than some of what we have experienced so far.
The situation is overly complicated, with differing responsibilities for different roads, and we heard earlier about some of the confusions in Bexley. That is repeated in a number of places around the country. Motorways are entirely the responsibility of National Highways. However, it is suggested that National Highways takes responsibility for litter collection on only some of its major A roads, even though the land is in its ownership. On many National Highways A roads, local authorities have to clear litter, so we see different standards across the country.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, I commend many of the volunteers—particularly those in Stoke-on-Trent South, who have been doing an incredible job across the constituency in addressing some of the litter issues. However, they simply cannot do that on many highway locations, where safety is a serious concern and where we need National Highways or others to remove some of the litter.
National Highways has now started to form litter partnerships with local authorities, which is a positive step forward. Those partnerships are important given that it would be totally unsafe—impossible, in many cases—to undertake litter collections on parts of the National Highways network without road closures. There needs to be effective co-ordination for litter picking to take place when those roads are closed for wider maintenance.
Sir Mike Penning
On the point about collaboration with local authorities, the financial burden should not fall on local authorities for something that is the legal responsibility of a different organisation. If that happens, it will spread around the country. That would be wrong, because it is not the financial burden of the local authority.
Jack Brereton
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We see lots of pressures on things such as social care and everything else that local authorities have to deal with, so it is totally unacceptable that, in addition, they have to routinely clear up litter on many of those roads.
As I mentioned earlier, Stoke-on-Trent City Council has to cut the grass on many of the areas for which National Highways should take responsibility. Yet because its policy is for one annual cut, which is totally insufficient and results in massive build-ups of litter, we do not see the standard of service we need, and the financial impact for local authorities that have to deal with that is significant. In many cases, it just does not happen at all and we see the continued build-up of vast quantities of litter on much of the highway network.
I hope these partnerships, alongside other measures being undertaken by National Highways, result in a step change in the standards we need to see and in dramatic improvements, which have to happen, on what we have experienced previously. Forty per cent. is far too much of a blight on the network. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said, there is far more than that and it is potentially an underestimate of the scale of the challenge. It is vitally important for people in Stoke-on-Trent, those visiting and the wider environment that we have an effective approach to maintenance and litter control on the strategic network. I thank my right hon. Friend for the debate. It is about an important matter, and I hope the Minister will address all the issues.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
First, I apologise to you, Mr Hollobone, for not giving advance notice of my intention to speak in the debate. I want to make a fairly short contribution. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on securing the debate and I apologise also to him for not being here for the very beginning of his speech, which I am sure was as outstanding as the latter part.
This is a genuinely serious issue. I cover the M25 and have the A2 in my constituency; nearby are the A20 and M20. There is no doubt that this is a growing problem; it is a worsening situation, which is very challenging to deal with. I am, frankly, sick to death of driving down the A2 and seeing this sea of litter along the side, particularly at junctions. The Darenth interchange is in my constituency, which is in an appalling state.
I am blessed in my constituency to have a large number of litter picker-type groups, which have done a fantastic job assisting the council and complementing the work that it does in picking up litter. The volunteer groups go out and collect litter. Some have been clearing litter from the junctions, but there is clearly a danger there—a significant risk.
When they contact National Highways, they are told not to go to the junctions—“Don’t go there; we advise against that because of the obvious dangers.” Some have been to those junctions and have taken away bags of rubbish, but there are all sorts of hazardous issues in doing that, not just traffic. So we are very reliant on National Highways taking the lead on this growing problem. It needs to show the lead. We are very reliant on it to clear up the litter.
Of course, National Highways do not drop the litter. People drop the litter, and I agree that that is the responsibility of those ignorant people who are throwing rubbish out of the window when they are driving along. I accept that sometimes it can be inadvertent, or negligent, but sometimes it is deliberate. Items are being thrown out of car windows and lorry windows, ensuring that the sides of the roads are an eyesore that we are all, unfortunately, getting used to seeing.
Margaret Ferrier
Does the hon. Member think that more frequent signage reminding motorists not to litter and the potential consequences of a fixed penalty notice would make any material difference to the levels of littering seen on the motorways? Would that be a worthwhile investment?
Gareth Johnson
I agree with the hon. Lady that that would make responsible people more aware of the issue, and they would act even more in a responsible manner. However, I do not feel it would have much of an impact on the ignorant people I spoke about earlier, who do not give a damn, frankly, about anybody else. It is someone else’s problem—“I am going to throw this rubbish out of the window and someone else is going to have to deal with it.” Unfortunately, those people are not going to change because of a sign.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right on the issue of fines. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead touched on this point in his speech. We now have camera technology that can give motorists fines for blocking box junctions, going through red traffic lights, speeding and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) will know about the ultra-low emission zone cameras, as will the Minister, although we will leave that issue to one side at the moment.
The technology is able to pick up motorists doing almost anything it seems, apart from when they litter. I would certainly welcome a change in policy so that we use the camera technology that already exists to target those vehicles responsible for rubbish being deliberately thrown on to our motorway verges and to issue fixed penalty notices to the registered keeper of those vehicles. That would have some impact on the blight that is hitting our country, alongside our motorways, up and down the country. I would like to see more of that happening.
This is a big and growing problem in my constituency, and not just there, but around the whole of the country. It is not just Dartford or Hemel Hempstead or Bexley or Stoke-on-Trent that suffers; it is the whole country. We are seeing a lackadaisical attitude from National Highways, which should be taking the lead and upping its game. The current situation is not tenable.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to work under your chairpersonship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on securing this debate. I know he has raised this important issue many times in the past and it is an issue to which he is fully committed. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
Motorways provide vital links between towns and cities across the country. They contribute tens of billions to our economy by helping to make sure our shelves are stocked with food, medical supplies and everything else that we need. However, litter on these roads is a serious issue that affects all those who use them, as well as the wider environment.
Littered motorways pose a risk to safety. Objects can obstruct drivers’ views or cause problems with grip, if caught between a wheel and the road. Furthermore, the impact of litter discarded on motorways stretches far beyond the roads themselves. It adds to pollution, which, as we have all seen, has a devastating impact on wildlife, especially in our oceans, seas and rivers. We have all seen shocking images of rubbish piled up on and around our motorways. There has been a failure to properly deal with it.
For instance, in 2020, a Channel 4 report showed huge piles of rubbish covering areas around the M25. Taxpayers’ money has been handed out to private firms to keep our motorways clear of litter, but incidents like this raise important questions that need answering. Although the vast majority of drivers do the right thing and dispose of their rubbish properly, a small minority cause problems.
Resources for picking up litter are important. However, preventing litter from being dropped in the first place is a lasting solution. I am aware of calls for greater penalties and better enforcement of anti-littering laws to incentivise drivers not to throw litter out of their car windows. Can the Minister confirm, either in his speech or in writing, the number of fines handed out for motorway littering? What steps has he taken to ensure that all those who litter are held accountable?
Sir Mike Penning
I thank the hon. Lady for her gracious comments. Sadly, National Highways does not have powers to issue fines, unlike local authorities. Almost certainly, enforcement through the use of cameras must be done by the Department for Transport unless we are going to change the statute, which is a separate subject for another day. It does not have the power to issue fines. I wish it did; on the other hand, perhaps not.
Gill Furniss
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that.
National Highways reports directly to the Department for Transport, so it falls to the Minister to hold it to account and ensure that it is upholding its statutory duties. What discussions has he had with National Highways about littering? Does he believe that all contracts handed out to private companies to keep our motorways free of litter are offering taxpayers good value for money? What steps is he willing to take if the problems do not get resolved?
As well as holding National Highways to account, there are a range of wider measures that the Government could introduce to tackle littering, but, as we see all too often, they are dragging their feet. Deposit returns for drinks containers have been shown to cut down littering, including on motorways, but that will not be launched until 2025, despite widespread public support for an earlier introduction.
I am concerned that such delays mean that the Government target to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2042 is already behind schedule. I conclude by once again commending the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead for securing this debate. Littering is a serious problem, which blights all our communities. It must be given the attention necessary to create a cleaner and safer environment for everyone who uses our motorways and highways.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
It is an absolute pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. I believe he served as Roads Minister for almost two and a half years; I hope to have even a fraction of that time in the role and to do as much work as he did in this area at the start of the coalition Government. I also thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), my hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead raised many issues that I will approach head on through my response on behalf of the Government. The Government’s vision is of a road network free of litter. We believe that there is a lot more that we can do to keep the strategic road network, which includes England’s motorways, clear of litter. Litter is not only an eyesore, as hon. Members on both sides have mentioned, but environmentally damaging in numerous ways. It can risk the lives of the people who need to collect it as well as those of people on the road network itself.
The Government’s litter strategy for England is owned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and it sets out the aim to deliver a substantial reduction, across Government, in litter and littering within a generation. The litter strategy brings together communities, businesses, charities and schools, to bring about real change by focusing on the following key themes: education and awareness, improving enforcement, and better cleaning and access to bins. Those three themes have been picked up by hon. Members across the House in this debate. Influencing public behaviour and discouraging littering from occurring in the first instance is important in delivering lasting improvements. We will work across Government and with anti-littering organisations to help achieve that vision.
The responsibility of National Highways was a key theme of my right hon. Friend’s speech, and the responsibility for clearing litter and sweeping carriageways is indeed governed by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. National Highways is responsible for litter collection on motorways and on some trunk roads. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup about the A2 and A20; the area is around the M25 and what is before and after it, but I will get the specific maps to him.
Relevant district and local authorities manage litter collection on roads in the rest of England. National Highways does have its own litter strategy, which aligns with wider Government strategy and has similar themes. Within that strategy, National Highways has committed to keeping the strategic road network predominantly free from litter without compromising safety, and delivering that affordably. National Highways staff undertake regular road inspections along the network to identify litter, detritus and safety hazards and they arrange for appropriate action as soon as possible, in line with the DEFRA code of practice on litter and refuse. Obviously, their main priority is to maintain road safety on the network.
Sir Mike Penning
As a former Roads Minister, I understand how it is when an arm’s length agency is sending notes saying, “This is what we do.” But it is completely different out there in the real world. I am sorry, but if National Highways is out there checking regularly, it really needs to get its eyes tested. The situation is appalling. Year after year, the same places are involved—particularly the junctions. In my part of the world, the M25/A41 junction is literally piled high year after year, and I have never seen it cleared. The Minister has a responsibility to the taxpayer to turn around and say, “This isn’t working.”
Mr Holden
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point. Most weeks, I drive up the A1 and M1 to my North West Durham constituency, so I know exactly the issues he is raising. I will write to him about the specific issues around the roads in his constituency.
I want to go into a few more details, but we all want the issue to be addressed. Obviously, safety is paramount when clearing litter from the network. The roads are often fast running a lot of the time, with high volumes of traffic. Litter picking usually requires traffic management and sometimes overnight working as well. Relevant organisations across Government work closely with other litter clearing organisations to improve the operational effectiveness of clearing wherever possible.
National Highways has previously utilised the Ministry of Justice’s community payback project scheme to assist with those clearances. Offenders have been involved in removing graffiti and rubbish at service stations as well. As my right hon. Friend will know, the Government still own a significant number of service stations on the national highway network. The scheme was suspended during the covid pandemic; I undertake to write to him about that and about what we are doing to push National Highways to make more use of it going forwards. Due to safety considerations, the opportunities for using offenders can be limited.
More broadly, the simple fact is that if litter was not dropped in the first place it would not need to be picked up; that is why influencing behaviours is an essential component of tackling the issue. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South and for Dartford made that point as well. To answer one of the questions posed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, I had a meeting with the chief executive of National Highways today and raised the issue of littering. In fairness to my officials, I have meetings every couple of weeks with the National Highways chief exec, and this was one issue that was raised today.
I have also spoken with National Highways about a broader awareness campaign. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford who made the important point that there is aggressive littering and more passive littering, and it is particularly important that we do all we can to make people aware of the impact littering has on not only the environment but everyone’s enjoyment of travelling across the country and our rural environment. There is a campaign currently in the offing to tackle this, because National Highways is aware of how much of an issue it has become.
National Highways uses research and evidence to inform anti-littering interventions, such as car and lorry-height bins, which people may have seen as they leave motorway service stations; anti-littering posters; and signs to encourage positive littering behaviours. I will write to hon. Members who have attended today’s debate about what more National Highways is doing in that space. Campaigns and messages such as “Don’t Drop Litter, Bin It” and “Keep It, Bin It” have been shown on electric message boards across the National Highways network, and there have been digital display sites at traffic hubs and motorway service stations across England. Feedback from road users has shown that that type of messaging can make a difference in reducing the amount of littering on certain parts of the network, and I want National Highways to do more of it.
We are continuously looking for other ways to influence littering behaviour, and we work with anti-littering charities, such as Keep Britain Tidy, and use their research to develop other interventions. National Highways supports the annual Great British Spring Clean, which raises awareness of roadside litter and encourages people to dispose of their litter correctly or to take it home. This year’s campaign was the seventh year that National Highways has been involved, and over the previous six campaigns it has collected over 60,000 binbags full of litter across the road network. National Highways also engages the commercial transport sector via its recently established professional driver experience panel, and littering behaviour campaigns throughout 2022 were aimed at road user groups who admit to having a propensity to litter, which includes commercial vehicle drivers.
Road users are also encouraged to report any instances of littering on the network to National Highways. There is also guidance available on many local authority websites, as well as other applications, to assist members of the public in reporting litter. All those interventions work towards engaging the public and preventing littering on the network in the first place, but this is a societal issue that does not just affect the wider road network. It will take work across wider Government and anti-littering organisations to continue to drive change in how littering affects areas.
Sir Mike Penning
I get the feeling that Minister is coming to a conclusion. All that work is taking place for the future, but unless we address the KSI issue, and unless there is some penalty for the agency not doing what it is required to do, the regulator cannot intervene, because fulfilling its legal requirements is not a KSI for the agency.
Mr Holden
I will come directly to the point about the KSI later. I have made a note of my right hon. Friend’s comments.
The debate has focused on litter on the motorways, but I must briefly highlight the work National Highways does with local authorities to combat litter on the roads. National Highways works closely with local authorities to resolve issues as far as is practicable. I will go into a bit more detail momentarily, but there is some good work with local authorities across the country, and the issue requires that interaction between National Highways and local authorities. To continuously improve collaboration and partnership working with local authorities, National Highways shares its maintenance and traffic management plans to allow litter collection to be carried out safely and simultaneously with maintenance, to help bring efficiencies to the process. NH provides a single point of contact to facilitate the co-ordination of litter clearance and provides an induction programme for local authority staff, which includes guidance on how to work with NH and signpost to further information and best practice. The Department expects NH to work with and support local authorities as much as possible to tackle litter on the wider strategic road network, and also at junctions, as litter does not stop at authority or National Highways boundaries.
Performance monitoring is one of the key drivers of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. The importance of litter to the Department and National Highways is highlighted by the fact that it is one of the performance indicators against which National Highways is monitored. The percentage of the strategic road network where litter is graded B or above under the DEFRA litter code of practice is measured. Grade B is defined as a network that is predominantly free from litter and refuse, apart from some small items. National Highways has committed to reporting against that metric annually. However, performance is monitored more regularly by the independent Highways Monitor, at the Office of Rail and Road. I will ask National Highways to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South about its policy regarding his council.
Mr Holden
If my right hon. Friend will allow to continue for another minute or so, he can jump in, if he needs to, on the KSI.
The Highways Monitor provides monthly advice to the Department on the performance of National Highways across all its performance metrics, and there is continuous dialogue between the three parties on opportunities for improvement.
Jack Brereton
I want to ask the Minister about the accuracy of that data. As we heard earlier, we have serious issues with grass and other vegetation disguising litter. Once it is cut, it reveals huge amounts of litter. I therefore question the accuracy of the data, and I wonder what the Minister’s view is on that.
Mr Holden
As I said, I will write to my hon. Friend about that, because it is an important point. If there is not proper monitoring, we cannot know what is going on. I want to get to the bottom of policies on grass cutting and other things.
National Highways and the Highways Monitor will report litter performance to the public in their annual reports, providing increased transparency. That happened only in road investment strategy 2. That is the era we are in now—between 2020 and 2025.
As hon. Members know, in 2021-22 National Highways reported that 61% of the network was graded A, which is no litter, or B, which is a small amount of litter. That means that a large proportion of the national highways—39%—has a significant amount. Although that is an improvement on 2020-21, which was about 49%, there is clearly still a lot of work to do. I do not underestimate that. Those grades are alongside DEFRA’s litter code of practice. The data for 2022-23 will be published this summer, so I ask hon. Members to keep an eye out for that.
Sir Mike Penning
I think what the Minister is saying to me is that, since I was the Minister, the regulator has not been allowed to look at the individual performance indicator, which is part of the KSI—it can look only at the KSI. Is he saying that the regulator can now look at the performance indicator on its own, or is it still allowed to look only at the KSI? If it is allowed to look only at the KSI, litter will not be on its agenda. He can write to me if he wants.
Mr Holden
If my right hon. Friend gives me a short amount of time, I will come to exactly what he is after.
NH believes that this improved practice over the past couple of years is due to sharing best practice between regions, more detailed data on targeted litter collections, and improved engagement with local authorities and authorities that clear litter on A roads, including Transport for London. We are currently developing the third road investment strategy, and continue to explore further metrics for inclusion in it—my right hon. Friend might want to put some specific KSIs in. That will include a performance specification and possible improvements to the specific metrics, including on litter. I will write to him on the specifics of what National Highways has to report, on what it is held accountable for and on those KPIs.
Mr French
I have a constructive suggestion for the Minister and the Department on producing new metrics. They will be familiar with the job of clearing up TfL’s mess by now—excuse the pun, but it is very deliberate. On the issue of responsibility and the impact of litter going on to motorways, we must consider consumer behaviour. However, there is an issue with some of the junctions that we have all spoken about, where litter is being blown through boroughs from TfL roads—I have mentioned the A2 and the A20. Certain boroughs want to clean the roads and some do not, and that is adding to the problems on motorways. When producing KPIs and working with other bodies, I suggest that the Department ensures that they have their own practices in place, so that this does not add to the pressures on National Highways.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. This is about local authorities working together at TfL level in London and with National Highways, and I will ensure that his views regarding key performance indicators are taken into consideration.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead that the performance indicator is there. There is not a target; this is about monitoring at the moment. That is for RIS2, but KPIs might be exactly where we want to go at the next stage—I want to make that clear to him. We are working to ensure that there are targeted metrics in RIS3 and that the KPIs focus on the things that are most important to road users, and it is quite clear from today’s debate that keeping the highways litter-free is one of them. The current situation is not tenable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, and I will speak to National Highways about the specifics as we look at its KPIs for RIS3. Progress will involve considering responses to the forthcoming public consultation on the National Highways strategic road network initial report, and I urge right hon. and hon. Members, and interested parties, to feed into that. As I said earlier, there are discussions about introducing an awareness campaign going forward.
Regarding enforcement and the use of technology, I have spoken about using education and awareness to influence littering behaviours, and about the work and performance of National Highways in clearing litter from the SRN. I want to cover enforcement and penalties, because right hon. and hon. Members also mentioned them. The Government understand that enforcement plays a key role in this regard, especially for litter thrown from vehicles. The enforcement of penalties for littering is owned by DEFRA, and we work closely with it and National Highways to improve enforcement options. Local authorities may issue fixed penalty notices for littering offences committed in their areas where it can be proven that litter was thrown from a vehicle.
The Littering from Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018 make provision about reporting littering from vehicles in England. In recent years, the Government have bolstered local authority enforcement powers by raising the upper limit on fixed penalty notices for littering and by introducing powers to issue the keeper of a vehicle from which litter is thrown with a civil penalty. As I said, I recently spoke to National Highways and visited its site at South Mimms, where I saw some of the cameras in action. National Highways passes on evidence of the most egregious cases of littering and fly-tipping, but more could be done to co-ordinate its work with local authorities. I will come on to some of that work, on which we are doing a pilot at the moment. In the end, though, it is for local authorities to decide whether to pass on that information and whether they believe they have sufficient evidence to take enforcement action in any given case.
Jack Brereton
I was going to ask the Minister about enforcement powers. As he has alluded to, National Highways does not have such powers. Is there no possibility that we could consider giving National Highways some of those powers? I have previously had discussions with the organisation about other offences being committed on its network that it is totally powerless to deal with.
Mr Holden
That is a broader debate, and it is up to Parliament to decide where these powers lie.
I would like to give a shout-out to a few local authorities. I will mention a couple of other examples later, but North Lincolnshire Council, Newark and Sherwood District Council and North West Leicestershire Council are three that National Highways has said it works very closely with. In the majority of cases, they do prosecute when information is passed on. National Highways is also working closely with Brighton and Hove City Council and East Hampshire District Council too, and I will come on to East Hampshire again.
Sir Mike Penning
This is very important. Is the Minister saying, as I think he is, that if an alleged offence takes place on the motorway, a local authority can prosecute that individual or vehicle?
Mr Holden
I am, and in certain cases the police might prosecute if it is something more dangerous. National Highways can pass the information to local authorities so that they can prosecute. For the fly-tipping of some larger items, where for example people pull up at the side of the motorway and dump large quantities of rubbish, although the financial responsibility for clearing it up would be with National Highways, the local authorities could prosecute. For local authorities, it could be a win-win in terms of prosecution. National Highways clears it up, but the local authority can issue fixed penalty notices. Government guidance is available for local authorities on dealing with litter and issuing fixed penalty notices in the code of practice on litter and refuse.
Litter may also fall from vehicles that have insufficiently secured loads, as hon. Friends mentioned. That comes under section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and enforcement in that area is conducted by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the police, as it is a more serious offence. Road users can contact the DVSA if they wish to report incidents. Hon. Members will probably be aware of people increasingly using dashcams to make such reports to the police and local authorities.
National Highways works with local authorities and the DVSA to ensure that enforcement is carried out where particular issues are evident. That has included providing evidence to local government and the police authorities from its camera network. That is the most effective method of enforcement, because the police and other authorities can look at a range of potential infractions in one go, rather than National Highways doing so in isolation. Currently, National Highways does not have the power to issue fines or prosecute, as it is not an enforcement agency; its focus is on safety and maintaining the road network.
The Government have no plans to give National Highways enforcement powers in tackling litter offences; however, the company is keen to use technology to help transform the roads it manages and create a road network that supports a modern country, and it is keen to work with local authorities to prosecute. I undertake to write to all local authorities after today’s debate to say, “When National Highways pass information to you, please do use it to prosecute,” so that they are all in the same space on that. In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, National Highways does not itself issue fines; it is up to individual local authorities to do so.
The Government and National Highways are exploring the potential to harness technology to tackle littering, such as using numberplate recognition cameras for littering enforcement and to influence littering behaviour. We are trialling the use of geofencing to push anti-littering messages to customers’ devices at 29 lay-bys on the A50 and the A180. In lay-bys where no bins are provided, we will push the message to encourage people to take litter home. Where bins are provided, their use will be encouraged. That activity will also enable us to better understand lay-by use. We will help to monitor those messages and their impact on the build-up of litter.
In partnership with East Hampshire District Council, in one of the more interesting developments in this space, we will shortly trial the use of CCTV to capture evidence of people littering in lay-bys in the south-east. We often have more issues in those lay-bys when there is stationary traffic. That is also one of the reasons more issues tend to occur at road junctions. East Hampshire will then issue fixed penalty notices or pursue prosecution —some cases will be very egregious—as appropriate. National Highways is unable to do that, because it is not the litter authority, but it wants to work with the council on it. Litter and vegetation will be cleared at sites so we will have the best ability to monitor the effectiveness of this approach. I will monitor the issue closely and, if it works well, I will happily look at rolling the pilot out more broadly to other local authorities across the country that are keen to do more work in this area.
We have also looked at using dashcams on National Highways vehicles, as well as artificial intelligence from moving vehicles. However, we have not yet found a cost-effective approach that works on littering.
For any approach to work, we need the relevant litter authority to partner with National Highways. I really hope that more local authorities will follow the lead of those local authorities who are working with us on this.
I will write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead on driver awareness courses for littering offences. There have been some increases in fines in recent years, and I will write to him on what we are doing in that space as well. On community service, I will make sure that National Highways reaches out to authorities more, particularly post pandemic.
Let me finish by reaffirming my thanks to colleagues for this insightful debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend is satisfied, at least to some degree, with my response, which makes clear that we recognise the importance of tackling litter and holding National Highways’ feet to the fire to do more in this space.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough mentioned the deposit return scheme. I understand her criticism. It is important that we get it right. We can see from what has happened in Scotland that not getting it right can cause more problems than it addresses. I want to make sure that we are in the right place on that scheme.
On private company contracts, my understanding from a conversation I had earlier today is that some of those privately managed contracts on parts of the motorway are in areas that are most clear of litter. If I find any specific issues on those contracts, I will write to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough.
We will continue to work hard to support the Government’s wider ambitions around litter. We are confident that National Highways shares that ambition. As we move forward, it is important to continue to improve how we can hold it accountable for preventing and tackling litter on England’s strategic road network.
Sir Mike Penning
Having sat in his seat, I know how difficult that must have been for the Minister. In good faith, he has espoused what the Government would like National Highways to do. I do not think I am going to hold my breath on that. I know that is sceptical, perhaps even arrogant, but National Highways makes so many promises, not just in this area, but in others too, and does not come through on what it promises.
It is very simple. I do not want a special project in my part of the world—I guarantee that the junctions I have alluded to in this debate will get done in the next couple of days. That is not why I wanted this debate. I wanted to highlight that this country is blighted by rubbish. I specifically picked on the motorway system because there is one organisation that has a legal responsibility. This place put a legal responsibility on it to protect the environment and clear this mess up. Up until now, that has not been happening. Wherever the figures come from—that almost two thirds of the network is clear of rubbish—I am really sorry, but someone needs to go and check. All they need to do is drive down the motorways in my part of the world, under the junctions, and they will see.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered litter on motorways.
Written Statements
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
Today, the Government are introducing the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill. The Bill will drive growth, innovation and productivity, ensuring that businesses and consumers in the UK reap the benefits of competitive markets. The Bill will:
boost innovation by increasing competition in digital markets, taking action against a small number of the most powerful tech companies that force businesses and consumers to sign up to unfair terms and pay inflated prices;
grow the economy by enhancing our wider competition regime to focus it on the areas of greatest harm, delivering a level playing field for businesses; and
protect consumers by strengthening the enforcement of consumer protection law and introducing new consumer rights, for example tackling subscription traps that currently set consumers back £1.6 billion a year.
Digital technologies have transformed the way we buy products and services, increasing accessibility, flexibility and choice, but we need to act now to address their potential for consumer harm. For instance, companies can make it unreasonably difficult for consumers to cancel a subscription, or inhibit choice by artificially ranking their own products higher in search results.
The Bill will give consumers greater choice and drive innovation, leading to new products that transform lives. It will also establish new, faster tools to address the unique barriers to competition in digital markets, allowing the Competition and Markets Authority to proactively drive more dynamic markets and prevent harmful practices such as making it difficult to switch between operating systems.
We are using the freedoms we have gained by leaving the EU to address these issues in a way that best works for the UK. We can now make our own decisions on how we maintain a proportionate system of regulation that drives innovation and protects consumers. Our new pro-competition regime, focused on the most powerful tech companies, is flexible and principles-based rather than following the EU Digital Markets Act’s blanket set of obligations on all “gatekeepers”, which risks creating unnecessary regulatory burdens for firms. Our more targeted and pro-innovation approach involves investigating specific harms, developing tailored obligations and taking more evidence-based regulatory decisions—informed by significant engagement with the firms themselves. We are also taking a power to ban unfair commercial practices, such as fake reviews, and are strengthening oversight of alternative dispute resolution services that would have been more constrained while in the EU.
The Bill will also support consumers through new and improved rights to deal with bad business practices such as subscription traps. This includes better information up front as well as easier exiting and earlier cancellation rights. These and other new measures will save consumers’ hard-earned cash and protect them from scams and rip-offs. We expect the Bill’s enforcement reforms to increase consumer benefits by tens of millions of pounds above the CMA’s current estimate of £146.5 million a year.
The Bill will grow the economy by boosting competition, better placing UK businesses to succeed in export markets. It will allow the CMA to more effectively deter, prevent and, where necessary, enforce against monopolistic behaviours, to ensure that the free market can operate effectively.
[HCWS737]
Resilience Update
(1 year, 7 months 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)
On Sunday, the Cabinet Office, working alongside the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the UK’s mobile network operators, delivered a successful test of the emergency alerts system.
The test was the largest simultaneous public message in UK history and was conducted in line with established international best practice. The test had two objectives: to test the operational performance of the system with a view to making technical or performance adjustments; and to raise public awareness of the system in advance of any use in a real emergency.
As I set out in my written ministerial statement to the House on 23 March, this is a critical step forward in the UK’s ability to respond to and inform the public about emergency situations that present a threat to life or property. It is an important new tool in our toolkit to help keep the country safe.
The vast majority of compatible devices—4G and 5G enabled, an estimated 80% of the total number of mobile phones in the UK—received the alert. The alert was approved by the Cabinet Office at 14:59:08 and issued by networks within seconds. This was timed to minimise disruption to events, showings and fixtures due to begin at 15:00:00. Two versions of the alert were issued: one in English and the second a bi-lingual alert in English and Welsh. As intended, the broadcast continued until 15:21:00, when the Cabinet Office issued the instruction for networks to stop transmitting the alert.
No security or public safety issues have been reported as a result of the test. Likewise, no events or sporting fixtures were materially disrupted. The public were well prepared, following a wide-reaching public communications campaign in the six weeks prior to the test, including extensive engagement with organisations which support domestic abuse victims who might have a secondary hidden phone.
The Cabinet Office, the mobile network operators and other stakeholders are now conducting an exercise to identify and action operational issues following the test. One mobile network provider, Three UK, experienced an issue with supporting multiple messages. This led to some Three UK customers failing to receive the emergency alert. The Cabinet Office is working closely with Three UK to implement an appropriate fix to ensure that that does not happen with future emergency alerts.
A further issue arose with the Welsh version of the test message. Following a short internal review, we believe that this error occurred as a result of an operational process, whereby an online system made a small autocorrect, rendering one word in the Welsh test message incorrect. The essence of the message remained unchanged. We are also aware that a very small number of devices received more than one alert. Early technical assessment shows that this is due to a small number of cellular masts continuing to broadcast after the end of the test, which could affect users especially in areas of low mobile coverage. Anyone travelling between England and Wales during the test would also have experienced two alerts. This issue will be addressed as part of the lessons learned exercise.
The system is now fully operable in the event of a real emergency. Sunday’s test serves as an important development in the roll-out of an emergency alerting system. It has allowed us to further validate the effectiveness of the system and to build public awareness, familiarity and trust. Following the UK-wide test, the Cabinet Office will conduct further operational testing. There are no current plans for a further UK-wide, or public, test of the system, though it is likely that there will be further public tests in the coming years to ensure the system is operational to help keep the British people safe.
[HCWS740]
Further Education: Capital Loans Scheme
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
I am today announcing the opening of a new capital loans scheme. The scheme will provide loans to colleges in England with capital projects, either underway or in advanced stages of planning, that have a funding gap because of restrictions on commercial borrowing following the Office for National Statistics decision to classify colleges as part of central Government. The college capital loans scheme is in addition to the package of measures we announced at the point of reclassification, including an additional £150 million allocation of capital grant funding to be provided in April 2023, an additional £53 million focused on delivering small-scale energy efficiency improvements across the college estate provided in December 2022, and investing £300 million in reprofiling of payments before the end of the current financial year.
The Department for Education is making great progress in transforming the further education estate. In the current spending review period, we are investing £2.8 billion in England’s college estate to build a world-class skills system that delivers the skills that the economy needs. This investment is improving the condition of the estate; providing new places in post-16 education; supporting the purchase of specialist equipment and facilities needed for T-Levels; and delivering the commitment to establish 20 institutes of technology across England. Most recently, we confirmed the £286 million FE capital transformation fund allocation. This will allow eligible colleges to prioritise and deliver projects to improve the condition of their estate.
I remain fully committed to the successful delivery and completion of all college capital projects benefiting from grant funding from my Department. All colleges delivering DFE grant-funded capital projects with evidence of intent to borrow commercially prior to reclassification will be eligible to apply for this new scheme. The scheme will also provide a route for meeting funding gaps faced by other capital projects being delivered by colleges themselves, including those funded by other Government Departments, subject to meeting the eligibility and assessment criteria set out in guidance published today.
We aim to offer loans to eligible DFE grant-funded capital projects by the summer, and self-funded capital projects by the autumn.
The new college capital loans scheme will ensure that our skills reforms stay on track, providing a ladder of opportunity that enables young people and adults to get good jobs and progress in their careers and build the skilled workforce that businesses need.
[HCWS739]
Energy Bills Discount Scheme
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
On 9 January 2023, the Government announced details of the energy bills discount scheme, which will come into force on 26 April 2023, with support backdated to 1 April 2023. This will follow on from the energy bill relief scheme, which ended on 31 March 2023, and has supported businesses and public sector organisations such as schools and hospitals by providing a discount on wholesale gas and electricity prices. The Government provided an unprecedented package of support for non-domestic users through the winter in the shape of the Energy Bill Relief Scheme, with total support of £7.3 billion expected to be provided under this scheme, shielding businesses and saving some around half of their wholesale energy cost.
Wholesale energy prices have fallen significantly since the introduction of the energy bill relief scheme. The energy bills discount scheme reflects this change and makes adjustments to the support provided under the energy bill relief scheme. The energy bills discount scheme strikes a balance between supporting businesses between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024 and limiting taxpayer’s exposure to volatile energy markets. The scheme provides long-term certainty for businesses and reflects how the scale of the challenge has changed since September last year.
The energy bills discount scheme will provide all eligible businesses and other non-domestic energy customers with a discount on high gas and electricity bills until 31 March 2024, following the end of the energy bill relief scheme. It will also provide businesses in energy and trade-intensive industry sectors with a higher level of support as they are less able to pass these higher costs on to customers due to international competition. The energy bills discount scheme price reduction will be linked to the wholesale element of a non-domestic customer’s gas and electricity bill and Government will reimburse suppliers in accordance with the scheme.
Further support will be available to domestic end users on heat networks, who fall under the energy bills discount scheme due to heat network operators having commercial energy contracts, to ensure they do not face disproportionately higher energy bills than consumers in equivalent households who benefit from the energy price guarantee. Heat suppliers will be required to apply for this support and then pass on any discounts to their customers in a “just and reasonable” way.
Eligibility for support under the energy bill relief scheme and the energy bills discount scheme will also be extended to additional non-standard cases not previously eligible. This includes: where non-domestic customers have received gas or electricity from licence-exempt suppliers via private wire—localised electricity grids connected to local distribution networks but linked to a privately-owned central plant which produces electricity; or pipe, where gas is conveyed to the customer’s premises by pipe; and where prices paid are pegged to wholesale energy prices.
Statutory instruments were made on 24 April and laid on 25 April. These will establish the energy bills discount scheme and ensure that essential energy bill support is provided to UK businesses in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that are supplied both by licensed gas and electricity suppliers and licence-exempt suppliers. They will also ensure that any non-domestic business or individual that receives energy through an intermediary will also benefit from the energy bills discount scheme in a “just and reasonable” way.
The Government are also running a number of other energy support schemes. These include the energy bill support scheme which delivered a £400 discount to consumers during the winter period and the energy price guarantee which has been extended until the end of June and protects customers from increases in energy costs by limiting the amount suppliers can charge per unit of energy used.
[HCWS741]
Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
This Government have been clear that sewage discharging into our rivers is completely unacceptable. In August 2022 this Government published the “Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan”, with an accompanying impact assessment. It is a plan that sets stringent targets to protect people and the environment. This will require water companies to deliver the largest infrastructure programme in water company history, totalling an estimated £56 billion.
Today we are announcing plans to enshrine the plan further in law. Through the Environment Act 2021, we will legislate for a clear target on storm overflow reduction in line with our plan. A clear, credible, costed and legally binding target will add to our transparent and determined approach to solve this issue, while keeping consumer bills low. This will also be backed by existing separate interim targets for bathing waters and our most precious habitats. This will build on the direction we placed on water companies to introduce monitoring in 2013, which will reach 100% by the end of this year. We will also deliver our commitment to further reform penalties to make them easier to apply, including proposing an unlimited penalty. We have also demanded that water companies provide action plans on every storm overflow by the summer.
[HCWS735]
Women, Peace and Security National Action Plan: 2022 Annual Report
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, together with the Ministry of Defence, is today publishing the 2022 annual report on progress against the UK’s fourth national action plan on women, peace and security.
Published on 18 January 2018, the national action plan set out the Government’s objectives on the women, peace and security agenda for the period 2018 to 2022. The report published today outlines the progress made in 2022, including our work in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Libya, Myanmar, Nigeria, South Sudan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It focuses on the seven strategic outcomes that were the focus of the NAP.
On 23 February 2023, the UK launched its fifth NAP (2023 to 2027), setting out the Government’s strategy for how we will continue to meet our women, peace and security commitments, under UN Security Council Resolution 1325, to reduce the impact of conflict on women and girls, and to promote their inclusion in conflict resolution and in building peace and security. The UK Government are committed to putting women and girls at the heart of the UK’s foreign, defence and security policy, as we have seen from the recent publication of the “International Women and Girls Strategy”.
The annual report will be published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS736]
Law Commission Review of Hate Crime Laws: Recommendation 8
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
I am pleased to announce the Government’s formal response to recommendation 8 of the Law Commission’s review of hate crime laws, which was published in December 2021. This review considered whether additional protected characteristics, including sex or gender, should be added to hate crime laws.
Section 72 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Act 2022 requires the Government to respond to recommendation 8 of the Law Commission’s review within a year of the Act coming into effect. This followed considerable parliamentary interest in the issue dealt with by this recommendation, commonly known as “making misogyny a hate crime”.
In recommendation 8, the Law Commission states:
“We recommend that sex or gender should not be added as a protected characteristic for the purposes of aggravated offences and enhanced sentencing.”
The Government are extremely grateful for the comprehensive and thoughtful work that the Law Commission gave to its review, as well as the quality and depth of its consultation with the many stakeholders interested in this issue.
The Government agree with the Law Commission’s recommendation. The Law Commission report highlights concerns relating to the potential negative consequences of adding sex or gender to hate crime laws, concluding that to do so would be
“more harmful than helpful, both to victims of violence against women and girls, and also to efforts to tackle hate crime more broadly.”
The Government agree with these concerns. Accordingly, the Government do not intend to bring forward legislation to add sex or gender as a protected characteristic in hate crime law.
The Government’s full response to recommendation 8 has been laid before Parliament and will also be available to view on www.gov.uk. This response fulfils the statutory commitment made in the PCSC Act 2022.
The full Government response to the remaining 33 recommendations made in the Law Commission’s review of hate crime laws will be published in due course.
[HCWS734]
Intellectual Property Office: Performance Targets
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for AI and Intellectual Property, Viscount Camrose:
Our innovation strategy sets our ambitions for an innovation-led economy. Now, more than ever, delivering the Government’s bold plan to grow the UK economy and make it the most innovative and creative economy in the world is vital.
Intellectual property (IP) is a crucial component to unlocking this. IP rights provide incentives for our innovative businesses, our world-renowned scientists and cutting-edge creators to innovate and create, ensuring they are rewarded for their efforts, and wider society can benefit from their work.
We are well-known for our leadership in research and for our excellent scientific and academic institutions. Our innovative nature means businesses continue to start and grow in all areas of the UK. Our creative industries have a global reputation, particularly in music, cinema, literature and computer games. Our world-class IP system underpins this success, and it must continue to do so.
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) plays a critical role in ensuring the right frameworks are provided to stimulate our innovative economy. The IPO are committed to delivering excellent IP services and developing world-leading IP policies and legislation so that customers can access, use and protect their IP effectively. In order to deliver these commitments, the IPO is also working to support and develop its people and set out a clearly stated organisational culture. The IPO Corporate Priorities 23/24 document sets out a clear plan to deliver during this financial year.
As an Executive Agency and trading fund of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), the IPO have set targets which are agreed by Ministers and laid before Parliament. I am pleased that today I can inform the House that for the financial year 23/24 the IPO’s strategic targets are:
Launch our Transformed One IPO rights granting service for selected patents customers by end of March 2024.
Achieve an average overall customer satisfaction of 85% or more.
Define the ideal culture to deliver our strategy by October 2023 and develop a detailed culture change plan by January 2024 setting out how we will move from our current culture to our future ideal culture.
Achieve efficiencies worth at least 3.5% of our core operating costs.
The IPO will work with DSIT and other partner organisations to deliver on their priorities, ensuring they support wider Government aims and that resources are focused in areas that will drive innovation and creativity in the UK.
[HCWS738]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, you know the drill, but if there is a Division in the Chamber, I will let the Committee know and we will adjourn for 10 minutes to allow for voting. No votes are expected.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Tuesday 25th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-V Fifth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (25 Apr 2023)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 207, line 11 amend inserted section 131ZB of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (realisation of confiscated cryptoassets) to provide that only the sheriff may make an order under that section requiring confiscated cryptoassets to be realised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, we now move to the Home Office clauses of the Bill and the amendments associated with them. I reiterate the thanks previously expressed by my noble friend the Minister for Investment to everyone who has participated in the scrutiny of the Bill to date, not least noble Lords who either met us to discuss the Bill or spoke during the first few days in Committee. I also reiterate my thanks to my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston for shepherding the first three parts of the Bill through Committee. They comprise sizeable and vital measures to make our country, businesses and citizens safer.
The amendments in this group concern the confiscation and recovery of crypto assets. Amendments 77M, 77N, 77P to 77Y, 77YA to 77YF, 78A and 78B—there are a lot of them—make a series of small and technical changes to measures in the Bill to ensure that it works as effectively as possible. They include amendments to ensure that the measures will function effectively in the context of the Scottish courts and will mirror existing asset recovery powers so that immigration officers can utilise the crypto-asset forfeiture powers. These amendments provide greater clarity to existing measures in the Bill and remain wholly in line with the original policy’s intent. I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments and I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 78 in my name and also more generally. I thank the team sitting behind the Minister who met me last week to try to see through this. I was somewhat reassured by what they had to say, but a couple of points hinge around the words “UK-connected” in describing crypto assets.
What we know about crypto is that it is connected nowhere. A number of crypto concerns are now administered under UK financial administration, but a whole lot more are not. Clearly, if the authorities were able to seize a crypto wallet, that would perhaps offer a greater opportunity for confiscating assets than having to go through the courts with these crypto-asset services. This may have limited application in the real world, when we get there. I do not think it is a bad thing and it is not a problem, but I do not think we should raise our expectations particularly high when it comes to being able to confiscate these sorts of assets.
To some extent, that is what sits behind my modest amendment, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to review the adequacy of the definitions of crypto assets and, by definition, how they can be confiscated under the Bill. The Secretary of State would have to lay a report before Parliament within 18 months. Because everything is changing so quickly in this sphere, it does not seem unreasonable to ask the Government to come back to Parliament and tell us how it is going. It is quite clear that new crypto assets are popping up every day. Who would have thought of NFTs as being crypto assets at all even a couple of years ago? Are they included in this? I assume that they are.
New digital assets will emerge over the next 18 months and beyond and it is sensible for the Government to keep Parliament in touch with what they are trying to do to bring these assets to book when appropriate. We welcome the changes in so far as they go. I do not think we should get too excited about them, but we should ask that the Government and the Secretary of State keep Parliament in touch with the changes that are going on all the time.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this is a slightly unusual debate, in that we have a lot of very specific amendments tabled by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has opened the debate by talking about how fluid the situation is when dealing with cryptocurrency and crypto assets as a whole, and other amendments in subsequent groups will deal with particular aspects.
Just by chance, yesterday evening I bumped into a former magistrate colleague of mine, John Glen, previously the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who told me about a speech that he gave on 4 April last year in which he set out the Government’s approach to crypto assets and the whole issue of trying to manage that approach in this fast-evolving world. I agree with the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We all acknowledge that this is fast-moving and the Government are doing their best to position themselves to be at the centre of developments and well-connected worldwide, as the understanding of the practical input and use of crypto assets is properly assessed, while also trying to bear down on the criminal activity that is undoubtedly prevalent within these assets.
Having read John Glen’s speech, in which he outlined the Government’s detailed plan, I will just mention some of the key points that he made, and perhaps the Minister can then say something about the Government’s approach to dealing with this fluid situation. John Glen’s first point was about stablecoins, which are a way of trying to harness technologies such as blockchain for the benefit of government by, for example, tying the pound to some form of cryptocurrency. That was being looked into and it would be interesting to know how that is going.
Another element of the plan outlined in John Glen’s speech was to ask the Law Commission to look at decentralised autonomous organisations, which are basically the groups that will run these crypto assets and the like. If there is any progress report on the work of that task force, that would be very interesting.
John Glen also talked about a sandbox, to be run by the Bank of England and the FCA, which will look at ways to manage the evolutionary process of regulation. I absolutely understand that is a difficult thing to do. Finally, he announced with some fanfare that the Royal Mint will create its own non-fungible token, or NFT. I do not know how that is going, but I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that—
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Well, it is indeed a fast-moving world.
We support the amendments in this group, but I would be interested to hear if the Minister could say something about the wider strategy in trying to make sure that the British Government are part of the development of these technologies, while bearing down on sources of fraud and money laundering.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I rise to express my concerns. It is not that I do not support the amendments or the comments made by other noble Lords, but calling these things crypto assets in an economic crime Bill, when we know that their origin seems to have been organised crime finding a way to money launder its ill-gotten rewards I find deeply troubling. A number of leading bankers, with whom I agree, have suggested that these things have no value. I urge the Government to be very alert to the potential risk of trying to make cryptocurrency—I am not talking about blockchain technology—and these so-called assets, which actually do not exist, appear to be reasonable things for British citizens to put their money into.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in his amendment to make sure we have a review point quite soon after this Bill. I acknowledge my noble friend Lady Altmann’s point about the strange context to put this in, but given that we have this Bill on the table, it would be very easy to put in a reference point because the climate for this asset is moving enormously fast. Between November 2021 and November 2022, the value of bitcoin fell by $2 trillion, which is not far short of the UK’s total annual GDP, although it has recovered a little since then. This is a vast sum of theoretical money that is swilling around, and we do not yet really understand how to manage it, so I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the points that have been raised in this debate so far, and I specifically thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for tabling Amendment 78. I also thank him for his kind words about the detailed technical briefing that he received from officials on these provisions, and I am glad it proved valuable.
The proposed clause seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report reviewing the definitions of crypto assets contained in the Bill within 18 months of its passage. We believe this is unnecessary. The definitions in the Bill are in line with existing definitions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Terrorism Act 2000 and follow the approach recommended by the joint Treasury, Financial Conduct Authority and Bank of England Cryptoassets Taskforce: Final Report in 2018—I imagine that goes some way towards answering the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
As to the issue of UK-connected firms raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the provisions enable the seizure of crypto assets from wallets and firms. They were developed with partners and were based on operational insights and are valuable and necessary. These definitions will be reviewed whenever and as often as needed. There is general agreement that the world is moving at an incredibly fast pace, and therefore there is a provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to amend the definitions of crypto assets in future through regulations which will be subject to debate in Parliament.
To go into a little more detail on future-proofing, the specific delegated powers allow the Secretary of State to amend definitions associated with crypto assets as part of these new crypto-asset confiscation and civil recovery regimes. The definitions in the confiscation and civil recovery provisions reflect those already in POCA, TACT and other linked legislation. Home Office officials will be working closely with law enforcement agencies to monitor the effectiveness of the crypto-asset powers post-implementation and, if necessary, the Government would look to update crypto-asset definitions. Noble Lords made very good points about the pace of change, and this legislation recognises that. The regulation- making power is intended for the express purpose of being able to respond dynamically to changes in technology or criminal behaviour rather than at arbitrary points in time.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about stable- coins and decentralised finance. He mentioned emerging technologies in the crypto-asset ecosystem. This Bill caters for criminal abuse of these as far as is practically possible. For example, stablecoins are captured by our definition of crypto assets. However, the definitions have been developed in consultation with industry so as not to stifle legitimate innovation.
Having mentioned “legitimate innovation”, I heard what my noble friend Lady Altmann had to say on the subject and she made some very good points.
I hope this provides reassurance that the definitions of crypto assets will remain subject to review with the ability to be updated in a responsive way. The provision to amend the definitions of crypto assets would be used appropriately and afford Parliament the opportunity for scrutiny, so I ask the noble Lord not to move his amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 206, line 39.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 206, line 39.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 208, line 47, page 209, line 2 and page 209, line 8 amend inserted section 131AA of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (destruction of seized cryptoassets) to provide that only the sheriff may make an order under that section.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 208, line 30.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 208, line 30.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 208, line 30.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 208, line 30.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 209, line 30, page 209, line 38 and page 210, line 14 are consequential on the amendments in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 206, line 39 and page 208, line 30.
“(4) In subsection (2), for “131A” substitute “131ZB(3), 131A(3) or 131AA(2)”Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 209, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 209, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 209, line 27.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“RECOVERY OF CRYPTOASSETS: SEARCHES, SEIZURE AND DETENTION”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the title of inserted Chapter 3C of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
“RECOVERY OF CRYPTOASSETS: FREEZING ORDERS”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the title of inserted Chapter 3D of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 263, line 36 clarify that references in sections 303Z51 and 303Z17A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (freezing orders) to a freezing order are to a current freezing order.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 245, line 3.
“13A_ In section 453C of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (obstruction offence in relation to immigration officers), in subsection (3), after paragraph (g) insert—“(ga) section 303Z21 (powers to search for cryptoasset-related items) as applied by section 24 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (exercise of civil recovery powers by immigration officers);(gb) section 303Z26 as so applied (powers to seize cryptoasset-related items);(gc) section 303Z27 as so applied (powers to detain cryptoasset-related items);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment consequentially amends section 453C of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (obstruction offence in relation to immigration officers) to provide that the offence in that section applies in relation to an immigration officer who is acting in exercise of certain cryptoasset-related powers in inserted Chapter 3C of Part 5 of that Act.
“Amendments to the UK Borders Act 2007
16_(1) Section 24 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (exercise of civil recovery powers by immigration officers) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), for “3B” substitute “3F”. (3) In subsection (2)(a), for “Chapter 3B” substitute “Chapters 3B to 3F”. (4) In subsection (2)(c), after “303Z2(4))” insert “, Chapter 3C (see section 303Z20(4)), Chapter 3D (see section 303Z36(8)) and Chapter 3E (see section 303Z41(9))”.(5) In subsection (2)(d), after “303G” insert “(including as section 303G is applied by section 303Z25)”.(6) In subsection (2)(e), after “303I” insert “(including as sections 303H and 303I are applied by section 303Z25)”.(7) In subsection (2)(f)—(a) in the opening words, for “or 303L(1)” substitute “, 303L(1), 303Z28(1) or (4), 303Z32(1) or (4) or 303Z57(3) or (5)”;(b) in sub-paragraph (ii), for “or (as the case may be) 303O” substitute “, 303O, 303Z41 or (as the case may be) 303Z60”.(8) In subsection (2)(g), for “or 303Z14” substitute “, 303Z14, 303Z41 or 303Z60”.(9) In subsection (2)(h), for “or 303Z18” substitute “, 303Z18, 303Z52 or 303Z64”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends section 24 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (exercise of civil recovery powers by immigration officers) to provide that immigration officers may exercise certain cryptoasset-related powers in inserted Chapters 3C to 3F of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 310, line 41 clarify that references in paragraphs 10Z7CL and 10Z6A of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (forfeiture of terrorist property) to a freezing order are to a current freezing order.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 295, line 27.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Money laundering: offences of failing to disclose
(1) The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is amended as follows.(2) In section 330 (failure to disclose: regulated sector)— (a) subsection (7A) is moved to after subsection (7B) and is renumbered subsection (7C);(b) after that subsection as moved and renumbered, insert— “(7D) Nor does a person commit an offence under this section if—(a) the information or other matter mentioned in subsection (3) consists of or includes information that was obtained only in consequence of the carrying out of a status check under section 40 of the Immigration Act 2014 or an immigration check under section 40A of that Act or both, and(b) but for the information so obtained the person would not have reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that another person is engaged in money laundering.”(3) In section 331 (failure to disclose: nominated officers in the regulated sector), after subsection (6A) insert—“(6B) Nor does a person commit an offence under this section if—(a) the information or other matter disclosed to the person under section 330 consists of or includes information that was obtained only in consequence of the carrying out of a status check under section 40 of the Immigration Act 2014 or an immigration check under section 40A of that Act or both, and(b) but for the information so obtained the person would not have reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that another person is engaged in money laundering.””Member’s explanatory statement
This creates a defence for people who fail to report money laundering if their knowledge or suspicion is based on information supplied under a status or immigration check. The defence applies where, but for that information, the person would not have reasonable grounds to know or suspect money laundering.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak first to the government amendments in this group. The first of these is Amendment 78C. This is intended to avoid unnecessary burdens on business from having to submit the same information for immigration purposes and under the SARs regime. The new clause creates a defence for people who fail to report money laundering if their knowledge or suspicion of money laundering arises solely as a result of an immigration check carried out using data supplied by the Home Office.
Under the Immigration Act 2014, banks and building societies are required to check whether their existing account holders or applicants for a current account are disqualified persons. Should banks match any of their existing customers against the disqualified persons list—the DPL—they will be required to notify the Home Office. At the same time, a match against the DPL could also trigger a requirement under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to submit a suspicious activity report, known as a SAR, to the NCA. This would require banks and building societies to report the same information twice, placing a financial and administrative burden on both them and the NCA.
By creating a defence against the offence of failing to report in Section 330 or Section 331 of POCA when the suspicion is solely the result of an immigration check using information provided by the Home Office, we will essentially remove the requirement for banks and building societies to submit a SAR under those circumstances. This will help mitigate the burden of such reports and the potential for dual reporting in the case of existing accounts. This amendment modifies existing POCA obligations and provides certainty on reporting requirements; failure to provide this certainty risks reporters taking a risk-averse approach to reporting and continuing to overreport.
I turn to Amendments 78D and 78G, tabled by the Government. These amendments ensure that applications for information orders can be made only where an authorised NCA officer reasonably believes that the foreign Financial Intelligence Unit—FIU—is requesting the information for strategic or operational intelligence analysis.
These amendments seek to address concerns from stakeholders that information orders could be used for purposes beyond those for which they are intended—specifically, that they may otherwise be used by foreign FIUs to circumvent existing intelligence and information-sharing procedures, under mutual legal assistance processes, by using the information shared through the information order as evidence in legal proceedings. Although information-sharing between international FIUs is crucial to combating economic crime and terrorist financing at an international level, a foreign partner should use existing mutual legal assistance processes if they wish to request evidentiary material from the UK. This is because the mutual legal assistance process is tightly regulated and has appropriate procedures and safeguards in place for sharing information of this kind. This amendment is essential to ensure that the information order measures in the Bill work as intended and that applications made for the orders are proportionate and justified.
Amendment 78E amends Section 339ZH of the Proceeds of Crime Act to remove the extension of the definition of money laundering to include predicate offences. The inclusion of these offences in the definition of money laundering would have broadened the scope of the clause beyond its intended purposes. We will rely on the existing definition of money laundering in Section 340 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; this will ensure there is a consistent definition of money laundering across the Act. The exclusion of predicate offences from the definition does not affect law enforcement’s ability to investigate or pursue cases of money laundering. It is for these reasons that I ask the Committee to support this government amendment.
Amendments 78F and 78H are small amendments to Section 339ZL of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Section 22F of the Terrorism Act 2000, allowing certain preliminary steps in relation to making a code of practice under these provisions, such as consultation on the draft code of practice, to be carried out prior to Royal Assent. This amendment will also bring the duty to issue a code into force on Royal Assent, ensuring that we avoid any unnecessary delays in laying a code of practice and operationalising the powers.
I hope that those explanations have provided further clarity on why these government amendments are needed, and I ask the Committee to support them. I beg to move.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I speak in favour of my own amendment, which is part of this group—Amendment 86, which is about asking for prioritisation of SARs reporting. Just to set the scene for noble Lords, according to the UK Financial Intelligence Unit, the praetorian guard of the NCA in this respect, there were 901,000 SAR reports in 2021-22, 70% of which related to banks. That is a number far in excess of what institutions can meaningfully deal with, so huge opportunities are being missed.
The Home Office itself has just produced its own report, called Transparency Data: Accounting Officer Memorandum: Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) Reform Programme, published on 24 February, just a few weeks ago. It accepts that there are at least four problems in our management of the SAR regime:
“Inconsistent levels of compliance reporting in some parts of the regulated sector … Insufficient human resource capacity within the UKFIU which limits their ability to analyse financial intelligence or engage with partners to improve the quality of SARs … Under-utilisation of SARs by law enforcement … Legacy IT systems which cause inefficiency and ineffectiveness throughout the regime”.
That is in the words of the Home Office, from literally only a few weeks ago. What is so frustrating is that the Government have been talking about this for at least four years. In April 2019, a strategic outline business case for the programme was reviewed by the Home Office. An economic crime plan was produced in July 2019 and then the full business case was subsequently reviewed and approved by the Home Office in April 2021. Yet we still do not seem to have a lot of action.
All my amendment is trying to do is to push the machine to get on with this. Of course, the Minister will ask me not to press the amendment, but I would ask him whether, in so doing, he can give us a date—maybe not today but in writing to the Committee—by when all this stuff will start to happen, because we are missing huge opportunities to identify economic crime. My simple proposal is to triage the SARs, so that the shortage of resource, which no doubt will remain for a while, can at least be concentrated on areas of greatest risk to our system.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
First, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, makes a very interesting point and I should like to hear the Minister’s views on it. I should also be interested to hear how many of the 900,000-odd SARs are acted on and followed up each year. That would be an interesting statistic to understand.
I wish to ask about Amendment 78E, which I do not fully understand. It would remove the reference being inserted into the Proceeds of Crime Act to predicate offences. I am not sure why we should take it out. It would be interesting to understand from the Minister why it was in the Bill in the first place and why the Government have now changed their mind and are taking it out. As I understand it, a predicate offence is the offence that creates the finances that are then laundered. It must in many cases be quite hard to untie those two things. I should have thought that it must be useful to any crime agency looking into these things to understand the full chain, from the original offence to the laundering of the funds. Clause 172 is talking only about information orders, not about creating new offences or anything else, so I am unclear why we would want to remove the predicate offence from the information order and would like to understand it a little more.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. I understand that the Government may have concerns about accepting it, but he made a very powerful case for trying to find a way to deal with an underresourced investigation procedure, perhaps by prioritising by frequency of the same company or individual under suspicion for their activity, the amounts of money available or certain countries that may be involved. There must be a way of prioritising the investigation of suspicious activity reporting, because I am certainly aware that some such activity is raised in what most people might consider relatively minor cases—but, of course, the banks need to take the issue seriously and report if they have suspicions. I would welcome the Minister’s comments and thoughts on the proposals of my noble friend Lord Agnew, but I also thank the Government for their amendments.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a clear exposition of the government amendments. I do not think I can find anything to get upset about over them—disappointingly, as I always like to get upset about the Government.
I should like to add a little, perhaps over-philosophically, on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. There is actionable information and there is noise, and 900,000 submissions sounds like noise, not actionable information. The noble Lord set out manfully how to try to make that noise actionable, but my sense is that you have to go back to what a SAR is. My understanding —I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, as I consider him the expert on these things—is that they are a self-reported classification. I wonder how this would help because, clearly, the risk register would drive behaviour and people would self-report under a different classification. I wonder whether, overall—perhaps the Minister can help here—how much SARs ever help in dealing with the proceeds of crime. In other words, when is this information useful, how is it useful and in what circumstances do the Government feel it is essential to know it? Starting from that position, we might have a better idea of how we sift the noise to make it more valuable, because it strikes me that the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, absolutely hits on the problem. I am not 100% convinced he hits on the solution, but we need a solution, so some dialogue between the noble Lord, the Government and others to come up with a plan would be very helpful.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I support the comments that have already been made. As the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, has said, he is really asking the Government to triage the SARs, for some way of managing the overwhelming amount of data which is reported. The only little glimpse of this I have in my other role as a magistrate is that we deal with proceeds of crime applications at magistrates’ court level, and it is not that unusual—I have dealt with it myself—where you are talking about potentially billions of pounds. But we are just seeing one very small snapshot of that in the particular application that we see in the magistrates’ courts. I am very well aware that these are immensely complicated situations to deal with, but just from listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, I think he is, as he said, really just pushing the Government to try and get on with their own plan. It would be very useful for this Committee to hear what the Government are planning to do and to come up with a timetable to try and impact on this problem. Other than that, I support the amendments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I once again thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I have listened with considerable interest to the points that have been raised. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for going against his natural instinct and supporting the Government.
I thank my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton for his Amendment 86, which would create a requirement for risk rating for submissions of suspicious activity reports, known as SARs. As my noble friend acknowledges, SARs intelligence is a critical tool in our ability to identify, disrupt and recover the hundreds of millions of pounds which underpin the most serious and organised crime in the UK. However, it is often not possible for reporters of SARs to assess the level of risk related to a SAR, or the underlying offence associated with the report, when it is submitted to the National Crime Agency. That is because the reporter may not have a complete picture of information on which to make such a rating. This could lead to potentially inaccurate information being submitted to the NCA if this were a requirement, as well as additional burdens on reporters that would distract resources from tackling economic crime.
Furthermore, the NCA already has procedures in place to enable reporters to alert specific concerns. It has issued an online guidance of glossary codes to reporters, which can be included in their reports and which allow them to label a SAR with a specific concern. These glossary codes can, for example, relate to suspicions of vulnerable children, human trafficking, or firearms offences, and enable the National Crime Agency to triage the reports so they can be allocated appropriately.
In addition, the SARs reform programme is delivering major reforms to the legacy SARs IT, to enable better analysis and exploitation of SARs intelligence to deliver law enforcement outcomes to disrupt criminals. As my noble friend has gone into more detail on this subject, I will answer in more detail generally about resource allocation and what have you.
We are increasing capacity within law enforcement to analyse and act on SARs intelligence. This will include 75 additional officers in the NCA, which will almost double capacity. Some 45 of these officers are already in post, and the milestone for recruiting the remaining 30 is the end of this financial year 2022-23. The programme has also provided more than 20 new financial investigators in the regional organised crime units dedicated to SARs analysis. These new staff are already delivering operational results from SARs intelligence, including the recovery of criminal assets—£380,000 to date this year, with approximately another £1 million frozen; I will come back on to some numbers in a second—and also identification and arrest of previously unknown organised crime group members.
In terms of the IT systems, a new SARs digital service, including data analytics, which will replace legacy IT implemented more than 20 years ago, is on its way. The first elements of the new SARs IT systems, which are for bulk reporter submission, were delivered in early 2021, to enable organisations to submit large volumes of SARs—bulk reporters—to begin testing the new systems. To ensure consistency of service, de-risk delivery and ensure the protection of the public, the end-to-end SARs digital service will be delivered in stages. The new SARs online portal and bulk submission system is shortly due to go live. This will be followed by further releases, which will replace the current SARs IT used by the UK Financial Intelligence Unit, law enforcement agencies and other government departments. My noble friend was quite right to bring up the subject, and I hope that provides some clarity as to what is being planned.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked about the additional number of SARs. The NCA received and processed 573,085 SARs in 2019-20. The number of SARs submitted increases significantly every year. Action taken as a result of these SARs saw £191,637,824 denied to criminals in 2019-20, which is an increase of about 46% on the previous year’s figure. SARs are analysed by the NCA for priority risks and then actioned accordingly. The majority of the reports are also made available to more than 75 law enforcement agencies and used in a variety of ways. This was recognised in the Financial Action Task Force’s mutual evaluation of the UK in 2018. We recognise that we could do more and are committed to the SARs reform programme, which aims to improve our ability to analyse SARs and for law enforcement to take action on them when appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, also asked why Amendment 78E is being tabled now. The original draft used a definition of money laundering based on a global standard from FATF—the Financial Action Task Force. The new definition ensures that the definition of money laundering is consistent with the rest of POCA. A predicate offence in the context of money laundering is an offence that leads to proceeds of crime being generated which then become the subject of a money laundering offence. The inclusion of these offences in the definition of money laundering in this clause would effectively include any criminal activity, thereby broadening the scope of the clause beyond its intended purpose. The exclusion of predicate offences from the definition does not affect law enforcement’s ability to investigate or pursue cases of money laundering.
I believe that I have answered all the specific questions. Once again, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this short debate. I ask my noble friend Lord Agnew not to press his amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(b) an authorised NCA officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the request was made only for the purpose of assisting the foreign FIU to conduct one or both of the following—” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends inserted section 339ZH(6B)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (information orders: foreign FIUs and money laundering) to ensure that information orders can only be granted where an authorised NCA officer reasonably believes that the foreign FIU is requesting the information for the purpose of conducting operational or strategic analysis.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes inserted subsection (6C) of section 339ZH of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. That subsection would have extended the definition of “money laundering”, for the purposes of subsections (6A) and (6B) of that section, to include predicate offences in respect of money laundering.
“(2A) A requirement in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (2) may be satisfied by the carrying out of the action required by the paragraph in question before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends inserted section 339ZL of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (code of practice about certain information orders) to provide that certain preliminary steps in relation to the making of a code of practice under that section (for example, publishing a draft) may be carried out before that section comes into force.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(b) an authorised NCA officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the request was made only for the purpose of assisting the foreign FIU to conduct one or both of the following—”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends inserted section 22B(6B) of the Terrorism Act 2000 (information orders: foreign FIUs and terrorist financing) to ensure that information orders can only be granted where an authorised NCA officer reasonably believes that the foreign FIU is requesting the information for the purpose of conducting operational or strategic analysis.
“(2A) A requirement in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (2) may be satisfied by the carrying out of the action required by the paragraph in question before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends inserted section 22F of the Terrorism Act 2000 (code of practice about certain information orders) to provide that certain preliminary steps in relation to the making of a code of practice under that section (for example, publishing a draft) may be carried out before that section comes into force.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
“HMRC anti-money laundering function
After section 5 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (Commissioners’ initial functions), insert—“5A Commissioners’ anti-money laundering functions (1) The Commissioners are responsible for anti-money laundering supervision.(2) The Commissioners must treat the function in subsection (1) as a priority equal to the functions in section 5.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a priority for HMRC to exercise its AML supervisory role. Having such a duty would ensure that HMRC fills an enforcement gap by generating more action against the promoters of aggressive tax avoidance schemes and the enablers of economic crimes in order to deter wrongdoing.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 79 asks that HMRC be given a specific requirement to prioritise the exercise of its AML supervisory role. The reason I ask is the criticism that the Government have raised against HMRC. The Financial Action Task Force observed that tax issues
“carried too much weight compared to other”
money laundering risk factors. It is concerning that HMRC has a repeated tendency to view AML risks from a more narrow tax perspective instead of considering a broader set of AML risks, despite being identified as a weakness. That is not my diagnosis but the Government’s diagnosis of the problem.
I raised several specific issues in our previous days in Committee, but they are absolutely relevant to support this amendment. The most recent assessment of HMRC’s effectiveness in this area showed that it was failing to keep pace with the requirement to register a business within 45 days, with performance worsening over the year from 78% in 2020-21 to only 70.71% in 2021-22. In practice, this means that more businesses—nearly one-third—are operating outside the scope of its supervision for longer periods than in previous years.
The next point is that the self-assessment highlights issues in the ECS recruitment process and delays in appointing staff, which have resulted in existing staff members being asked to fill in with training duties. That goes back to my earlier point on the last amendment about the lack of qualified resource. HMRC discloses that there continues to be delays in publishing guidance for businesses under its supervision on the steps required to meet their regulatory obligations as well as on responding to specific money laundering risks.
Fourthly, the volume of face-to-face visits conducted by HMRC has slowed down—there has been a downward tendency in the number of on-site visits. There were 1,265 in 2018-19, and in the year 2021-22 that had slumped to 289—for most people, Covid was behind us, so I am not sure that that is an entirely legitimate explanation.
The next point is that HMRC has not yet used civil powers it has at its disposal to issue censuring statements for failing to comply with the MLR, or injunction powers to prevent a future breach. Again, I am sure that is happening because it simply does not have the resources available.
Lastly, an increase shows signs that HMRC is ramping up its enforcement as a supervisor, but the penalty amounts being recovered are reducing. A total of £44.8 million in fines were issued between 2018-19 and 2021-22 have now been revised down to just £8.6 million. Again, I am sure that this all goes back to resource and specifically to focus.
As I said in my opening comments—I know this from my experience of being an HMRC oversight Minister for Brexit border readiness—there is a huge cultural focus on tax collection in HMRC. There is nothing wrong with that, but this is a first cousin and it is HMRC’s responsibility to look after this stuff, and, frankly, it is not doing the job properly. My amendment would simply put some focus on that in the Bill. Again, I know from my experience as a Minister for five years that officials respond to these kinds of controls in the way they manage the resources in their department. I hope my noble friend the Minister will listen. I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I will make a disclosure further to my subsequent disclosure of being a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales; I am also a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, also by examination, which means that in theory I am capable of giving tax advice but, sadly, not in respect of anything after 1985. None the less, I feel that I should disclose that when discussing this issue.
It is customary to congratulate a noble friend on the introduction of an amendment, and I very much congratulate my noble friend on the introduction of this amendment. He speaks with great knowledge of the inside track of what is going on in the Treasury, and he is the one person who stood up against potential fraud taking place. As such, I hope that my noble friend the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, will listen to my noble friend’s words. I appreciate that this has been thrust upon the Minister and it is not normal Home Office territory; it is not even the Business and Trade territory of my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston but Treasury territory.
However, this amendment is particularly important. It seeks to amend the HMRC Act of 2005. The problem with the Act as it stands is that it does not make stopping tax avoidance or even evasion a big enough priority for HMRC, and as a result HMRC views it as part of a sort of cost-benefit analysis rather than as a deterrent. This is particularly worrying with regards to VAT, where VAT avoidance can distort competition. As a result, the EU Commission used to occupy an oversight function with regard to the application of VAT and would always take action where a member state did something with VAT that distorted competition. For example, Italy tried to give an amnesty to companies which had not paid VAT in order to save money in Italy, but the Commission stepped in and stopped that. However, now it has lost that oversight, so the question is: who polices HMRC with regard to the application of VAT?
Noble Lords will recall that we discussed at Second Reading the case of 11,000 Chinese businesses that registered themselves at the flat of a Mr Dylan Davies in Wales, who was subsequently pursued by HMRC and the bailiffs for unpaid VAT. When we discussed the issue, we referred to it from a Companies House perspective, which had not picked up that 11,000 companies were registered in a two-bedroom flat in Wales. Actually, HMRC should have picked up on that; had this amendment been in place, maybe it would have done so. There is a history of HMRC not seeking to pursue fraud, never mind money laundering, so the very least we can do is make sure that it has a duty to detect money laundering where it sees it. I am indebted to Richard Allen of RAVAS, who has pretty much run a one-man campaign against VAT fraud and highlighted these sorts of issues. There are clearly other issues in the 2005 Act, but this is an opportunity to plug one very important hole.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly support this amendment. As I said on a previous group, I was surprised to discover that the vast majority of small accountancy firms are not regulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member—fortunately, I am not also a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation.
That majority of small firms are the ones doing the verification under the overseas entity register and will be the authorised corporate service providers. They are, or will be, regulated by HMRC for anti-money laundering purposes, and that is the qualification they need to be able to do the verification. If HMRC is not carrying out this role seriously—which it is not—then all the safeguards built into this Bill on verification become meaningless. It is incredibly important that HMRC’s resolve in terms of its responsibilities as an AML regulator is sufficiently stiffened to mean something for all these ACSPs and the due diligence verifiers in the overseas entity register. Without that, this Bill loses an awful lot of teeth.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is true that the Minister is being asked to take on Treasury functions—having first talked about cryptocurrency, we are now dealing with this issue—and I look forward to his response. I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, who has been consistent in his theme that, without due, proper and improved enforcement, the Bill that we are spending all these hours debating will have very little effect on the outside world. This is one element of the enforcement story.
The noble Lord’s point is bang on: where there is a finite resource—which, of course, there always is—HMRC will target what it believes benefits the country most. As the noble Lord pointed out, that tends to be tax generation rather than AML functions. For this Bill to be successful, something needs to change to refocus the Treasury on AML issues, as we have heard. If that is not to be the noble Lord’s amendment, what will it be?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with all the points that have been made by noble Lords. When on the previous group the Minister read out the figures recovered, they were derisory compared to the amount of dirty money that it is speculated is washing around the systems for which we are responsible. The whole thing is extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, speaks with great authority on this matter. He is an insider and, as the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Vaux, said, this is a way of getting proper enforcement into the Bill so it has proper teeth and so that HMRC can reprioritise not just tax generation but its work against money laundering. We support the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, once again I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Agnew for his amendment. While the Government agree whole- heartedly on the critical role that supervision must play in tackling economic crime, we cannot support the proposed new clause. HMRC already has an anti-money laundering supervisory function, and it takes its responsibilities very seriously. HMRC supervises nine sectors and is already the default supervisor for trust or company service providers when they are not already subject to supervision by the Financial Conduct Authority or one of the 22 professional body supervisors. The proposed amendment would duplicate these provisions and to that extent it is unnecessary. Furthermore, it could make HMRC responsible for all anti-money laundering supervision, potentially cutting across existing regulatory relationships, such as that between the major banks and the FCA. HMRC takes its money laundering supervisory responsibilities very seriously.
My noble friend raised a number of issues regarding face-to-face compliance and so on. He said that the number of face-to-face compliance visits dropped from 1,265 in 2018-19 to just 289 in 2021-22, but these figures are misleading because the overall number of interventions was greater, with the total number increasing from 1,396 in 2018-19 to 3,725 in 2021-22. Although these figures include a mass-targeted exercise checking for business risk assessments and other key documents in 2021-22, the total would still have increased from 1,396 to 2,329 without that. A range of factors caused the variation in face-to-face intervention levels from 2018-19 levels including, as my noble friend noted, pandemic issues, the impact of recruiting and training —I will come on to that in a second—with a large number of new officers and differing resource levels needed to support different types of interventions. In 2022-23, HMRC carried out more than 3,000 interventions, of which more than 900 were face-to-face. It also issued more than 750 penalties to non-compliant businesses and refused more than 400 applications to register. HMRC’s anti-money laundering function is carried out by its fraud investigation service and works alongside other teams in this section and across government and law enforcement to maximise its impact.
My noble friend asked whether it is true that HMRC is failing to meet a legal requirement to register businesses within 45 days of application, with a reduction from 78% to 70% meaning that nearly one-third are operating outside the scope of supervision. Nearly one-third of applicants are outside the scope of supervision while their applications are being determined. Businesses are under supervisory scrutiny during the application process, and HMRC’s risk-based approach means that businesses from the highest risk sectors are prioritised. The highest-risk sectors are money services businesses and TCSPs, which cannot begin carrying out relevant activity until HMRC has determined that they are fit and proper. There are some cases where it is not possible to process an application within 45 days, for example, if waiting for important information from an overseas agency. However, there have been particular challenges that caused delays that HMRC regrets, including issues with its computer system, but I understand that significant progress has been made recently and that HMRC is now much closer to achieving the 45-day turnaround for all but the most tricky cases.
The Government are clear that further reform of the anti-money laundering supervision system is needed, but the best scale and type of reform to improve effectiveness and solve the problems that have been identified is not yet clear. His Majesty’s Treasury will issue a formal consultation on the possible options by the end of June 2023. Implementation timelines will depend on the outcome of this consultation.
My noble friend Lord Agnew and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked about HMRC’s performance as a supervisor. A senior manager independent of the supervision team carries out a robust annual assessment of HMRC’s supervision against OPBAS standards. The process currently under way to deliver the next self-assessment has also involved an assurance team from HMRC’s customer compliance group to add a further layer of scrutiny and independence to the process. This assessment must necessarily highlight any problems and areas where HMRC can improve its supervision. Those issues include needing to recruit and train large numbers of new officers—again, to address the question from my noble friend—and some inconsistencies in performance across the unit. However, the 2021-22 assessment judged that HMRC is effective and compliant in its obligations under the money laundering regulations and as set out in the OPBAS sourcebook, driving up performance despite the pandemic. The assessment also highlighted numerous strengths, including well-structured risk assessments, use of multiple supervisory tools in a risk-based approach and a robust registration process. On recruitment, HMRC’s supervision team is larger than it has ever been now, totalling more than 400 staff.
All this will ensure that the risks and implications of each option are fully understood before the Government commit to any particular model of supervision. Pre-empting this through an amendment of this type risks generating exactly the type of confusion over responsibilities that I think my noble friend seeks to avoid. I therefore hope that he is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I have to say that I am becoming increasingly concerned as we go through this process that, every time we raise concerns about things, we are told that everything is fine. That is what we are being told now—that HMRC is doing a really good job of the ML regulation. The truth is that we have massive quantities of money laundering going through the UK market, and in many cases that is enabled by people who are regulated by the HMRC—a lot of the small entities particularly. So there is a problem, and we keep being told that it is not that serious. It worries me substantially that we are not really taking this seriously or trying to solve the serious problem that this country has. We have become a laughing stock and are known as the “London laundromat”. It is embarrassing.
Can I ask a supplementary question? As I mentioned before, the ACSPs are going to be performing the verification processes, which are not actually going to be covered by the anti-money laundering regulations. The people doing it have to be registered with an anti-money laundering regulator, but the regulators themselves do not actually have any process set out for ensuring that the verification processes put in this Bill are covered. How do we bridge that gap?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have to say to the noble Lord that I did not anywhere say that the Government say that everything is under control and perfectly fine. As the noble Lord will be aware, the anti-money laundering regulations themselves are due to be looked at.
The second part of his question relates to why HMRC does not supervise the TCSPs properly, allegedly —but it does.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I am looking forward to when this Bill goes through and becomes an Act as to the verification processes being put in place by the Bill by the ACSPs.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Ah, the noble Lord said ACSPs—my apologies. I misheard an acronym. In that case, I shall have to write on that, because I do not know the answer.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“Strategic lawsuits against public participation
(1) It is an offence for a person or entity without reasonable excuse to threaten civil litigation against another person or entity with intent to suppress the publication of any information likely to be relevant to the investigation of an economic crime.(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a new criminal offence to deal with groundless threats in pursuance of SLAPPS in order to suppress investigations into economic crimes.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 80, in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Agnew, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, for whose support I am most grateful.
I will give a little background to set the amendment in context. In the 2021-22 Session, I drafted and introduced a Private Member’s Bill on the issue of SLAPPs, based on the Ontario model, as endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Obviously, I had modified that model to suit the procedures of the civil justice system in England and Wales. Through the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, I met with the Under-Secretary of State in the MoJ, James Cartlidge MP, and his officials, and had a very positive meeting with them.
My draft Bill was basically acceptable in principle, but there was one matter, they told me, it did not deal with: the scourge of pre-action threatening letters, designed to inhibit and intimidate journalistic or academic investigation. However, I was told that the Government were proposing a consultation on the issue, and indeed there was a call for evidence on 17 March 2022. It was wide-ranging; there were 48 questions asked of respondents. As it happens, not one referred to the issue of threatening letters prior to proceedings. However, one respondent suggested that any pre-action letter should require a statement of truth, so that any false allegations in the letter could be treated as a contempt of court.
The consultation finished in May of last year, and the MoJ published a full response in July. Dominic Raab said in the foreword:
“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Protection, or SLAPPs, are a growing threat to freedom of speech and a free press – fundamental liberties that are the lifeblood of our democracy. Typically used by the super-rich, SLAPPs stifle legitimate reporting and debate”.
This is the point that I want to draw to your Lordships’ attention—he continued:
“They are at their most pernicious before cases ever reach a courtroom, with seemingly endless legal letters that threaten our journalists, academics, and campaigners with sky-high costs and damages”.
At the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, said:
“The Government are committed to tackling SLAPPs”
—I am sure that is right—
“but as the first country to pursue national legislation on such a complex issue”
—he ignored all the states of the United States, Canada and Australia, where such legislation exists, but never mind about that—
“it is right that we take the necessary time to consider this carefully and make sure we get it right. We will introduce primary legislation to tackle SLAPPs—this is where I am going to upset all noble Lords—as soon as parliamentary time allows”.
Now, I have to admit, I was upset. He continued:
“We are in the process of ensuring that we have anti-SLAPPs legislation which properly and comprehensively addresses the problem”.—[Official Report, 8/2/23; col. 1317]
So when will parliamentary time allow? Certainly not in this Session: it is highly unlikely that it will feature in a programme running up to a general election. So we are looking at years before this legislation can come to pass, although I guarantee that a Liberal Democrat-led Administration would deal with the matter as a priority.
I come to the substance of my amendment. I take the view that the endless stream of threatening letters—the “most pernicious” element, as Mr Raab described it, and really he should know—can be dealt with in the context of this Bill by criminalising their use in the investigation of the crimes set out in Schedule 9. I appreciate that may not cover the whole gamut of strategic litigation, and that a wider Bill will be necessary in due course, but investigative journalism is very much involved in turning over the stones of fraud, money laundering, bribery and the rest, and it is certainly in that area that SLAPPs have most frequently been used.
So the new offence that I propose could not be simpler:
“It is an offence for a person or entity without reasonable excuse to threaten civil litigation against another person or entity with intent to suppress the publication of any information likely to be relevant to the investigation of an economic crime”.
I think that is fairly understandable. The prosecution would have to prove a threat; a solicitor’s letter will speak for itself, and it will be for the jury to decide and judge its contents. Evidence will be necessary, of course, to prove intent, but that raises no more problems than in any other case in which intent has to be proved. Again, it will be a matter for a jury. An evidential burden would be placed on the defendant to raise a reasonable excuse for the prosecution to disprove, and the ultimate burden of proof of guilt would, of course, rest with the prosecution.
I believe that an offence of this nature, simply stated, would immediately result in a change of culture among those reputation lawyers who profited from this type of litigation. Their collective response to the consultation to which I referred was, “Nothing happening here, guv. Threatening? Oh, it’s just the rough and tumble of ordinary litigation”. No longer would the young Turk in the office be able to dash out on his laptop ill-considered threats. He would know that he will have a responsibility to interrogate his client thoroughly before committing his firm to intimidating conduct which would land both him and his senior partners in the dock, with all the reputational consequences for themselves. Further, it would be a great relief to threatened investigative journalists if, instead of having to consult their lawyers at considerable expense, they could make a complaint to the police and allow the criminal law to take its course. We can make this change now and let the great stew of reform of the civil procedure system which is slowly cooking in the MoJ follow “when parliamentary time allows”.
I conclude by strongly supporting the other amendments in this group for the same reasons. These are creating the means to tackle the SLAPPs problem of imbalance, as described in paragraph 15 of the Government’s response to the consultation. This is how the Government put it:
“the extreme power imbalance and inequality of arms between, on the one hand, media organisations, advocacy groups, academics, and journalists and, on the other, Claimant corporations or wealthy individuals who typically bring these cases”.
This group of amendments is designed to do something now—action, as the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, called for on an earlier amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for allowing me to speak before him. I shall speak to the three amendments I have tabled in my name. I should declare that I chair the Communications and Digital Select Committee, and I have tabled those three amendments with the full authority of the committee, because they follow the work that we have done over the past year or so inquiring into the practice of SLAPPs. We have also been in correspondence with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and that correspondence is available on the committee’s website.
My amendments are Amendments 87, 88 and 89. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for signing all three of them and to my noble friend Lord Faulks and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for signing Amendments 87 and 88. I add, in a personal capacity, that I support the other amendments in this group, both that from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.
At Second Reading, we heard a comprehensive description of the impact of SLAPPs against journalists and public bodies, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has given us a taste of that in his opening remarks, so I will not go over any of that again.
In very simple terms, looking at our different amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is tackling this from the perspective of the rich and powerful who abuse the legal system; the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is seeking to introduce provisions that support journalists or public bodies in mounting a defence against that action; and, in my amendments, I am trying to deter and prevent solicitors from supporting anybody, normally the rich and powerful, in bringing forward this action in the first place.
In Amendments 87 and 88, I am trying to make it explicit that solicitors cannot accept clients who want to abuse the legal system and avoid and suppress information that could be relevant to economic crime, by giving the regulator clear power to fine and sanction solicitors who breach that rule. They also make it clear that dirty money cannot be accepted for fees when the purpose of the action could prevent someone being subject to the justice system.
To unpack that a little further and focus on those two amendments, at the moment the SRA can fine traditional law firms and solicitors up to £25,000—we know how small a sum that is for some of the very large and powerful legal firms involved. Strangely, the regulator can fine different types of law firms—what are known as alternative business structures—up to £250 million, but this applies only to that kind of category of firm. There is an odd discrepancy. The Solicitors Regulation Authority recently criticised the inadequacy of the £25,000 limit and called for it to be addressed.
My amendments are very much in line with the aims of the Bill, which already removes the regulator’s fining cap for a narrow set of economic crime transgressions but does not specify that this will be applicable to SLAPP cases relating to economic crime. The SRA has said that the Bill’s tests are tightly drawn and the numbers of relevant cases that will fall within them are limited. My Amendments 87 and 88 make it clear that measures to remove the fining cap for professional misconduct also apply specifically to cases that involve an abuse of the legal process to suppress legitimate reporting on economic crime. Not all SLAPPs are about economic crime but, importantly, the regulator says that around half of its current SLAPP investigations are linked to economic crime. Amendments 87 and 88 therefore provide a sensible and proportionate change that supports the spirit of the Bill and government policy to tackle SLAPPs.
Amendment 89 is about closing loopholes that allow the rich and powerful to abuse our legal system and use criminal funds to pay for it. Throughout our scrutiny of SLAPPs as a committee, I have learned that payment for legal advice is not subject to the same type of money laundering regulation checks as other legal services. The Proceeds of Crime Act apparently does not prevent lawyers accepting dirty money to pursue SLAPP cases or require them to report suspicious activity. We have held evidence sessions on this matter and our witnesses described it as a significant issue. Addressing this is complex because—I say this in a Committee of very distinguished lawyers—everyone should have a right to use our justice system and lawyers will need to be able to represent criminals without prejudicing confidentiality. I understand the argument that I expect lawyers to make on the need for criminals to be able to seek proper support and for questions not necessarily to be asked about money.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I, too, support all the amendments in this group, two of which are in my name. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have added their names to my amendments and I have added my name to their amendments, so we are all onside together, I hope.
There are many good actors in our financial and legal systems, and I hope we can take that as a given. However, the need for this Bill and the general welcome it has received from all sides reflects the need to address the dark areas where reform is essential to meet modern challenges. One such is Companies House, which we discussed at length on previous days. Today, we have had money laundering and another, which we have now reached, is the use of SLAPPs—the use of UK legal processes and law firms to harass those who seek to publish public interest information relating to economic crime.
The problem with legislating to prevent SLAPPs, other than the Government’s refusal to do so, has been definitional. Everyone has the right to defend themselves and their reputation, and lawyers have a role in seeing off scurrilous attacks. However, it is widely acknowledged that, increasingly, some actors weaponise the law not to seek redress for unfounded slurs by a legal remedy but to use UK law firms to bludgeon into silence those investigating economic crime and thereby ensure that economic crime remains concealed.
As a senior former Law Lord, who, sadly, is unable to be here today, said to me only yesterday, the legal profession cannot simply be asked to regulate itself. The Government have very limited resources to do so, so we must protect investigative journalists who fulfil the vital function of bringing economic crime into the light.
Acting against SLAPPs belongs in this Bill. In previous days of debate and again today there have been references to the “London laundromat” and similar terms. In some ways, you could argue that the UK has become a market leader in economic crime. It is possible to go on kleptocracy tours, where you drive around London and buildings are pointed out to you—breathtakingly expensive properties derived from unexplained wealth. In April 2022, the National Crime Agency reported that the scale of money laundering in the UK was in excess of £100 billion per year. SLAPPs are an inseparable part of this dark side of our financial industry.
In the same month as the National Crime Agency published its report on money laundering, the Foreign Policy Centre and ARTICLE 19 published the tellingly entitled, London Calling. They have made it clear to me—I do not want to up the ante on the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell—that at least 70% of the SLAPP cases reported to them have a direct connection to economic crime.
It is simply too easy for those with vast resources to deploy UK law firms to impede and suppress economic crime investigations. This is not some nicety or obscure point of technical legal finesse; it has embedded itself in our legal system. It intimidates the weak and it takes over victims’ lives, often for years. Those willing to provide SLAPP services do not just operate against UK targets. Daphne Galizia, a Maltese journalist investigating corruption, was hit with no fewer than 47 libel cases as part of a direct, grinding intimidation strategy led by a UK law firm. As a tragic footnote to her story, when she persisted in exposing corruption, someone decided the intimidation was not working and she was simply murdered.
I will not weary the Committee with further examples. The real point to note here is that, exactly because SLAPPs are so effective, most economic crime information of this sort never sees the light of day. Editors simply cannot take on the costs and risks of resisting such attacks, and newspapers are muzzled in reporting economic crime. In short, the Bill is a welcome opportunity to tackle the ills of economic crime, but one that comes along only very occasionally, as others said in the preceding days.
I have done my best to explain why this Bill is the correct legislation to put into law protection from SLAPPs and thereby remove the stain they place on the reputation of our legal profession, the damage they do to the UK’s rule of law and their use in distorting UK markets. But I should not need to labour these points, for the following two reasons. First, there has been vigorous and repeated cross-party support in both Houses for dealing with SLAPPs. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, highlighted for us, the Government have repeatedly and specifically declared not only that they are very concerned about this issue but that they intend to legislate to deal with it. However, these declarations have always ended the same way: with promises to act “in due course” or “when parliamentary time allows”. I am sorry, but there is absolutely no sign of it on even the furthest horizon, and the electoral horizon is now getting very close. I hope the noble Minister will take a more engaged approach.
I thank noble Lords for their patience and I now turn to the amendments. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, tackles the issue of SLAPPs head on, making it an offence to use threats in this way. The key point of this amendment is that it defines an offence to which the court can apply its judgment, and its existence should discourage the use of SLAPPs. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, put this across brilliantly. Will the court get it right every time? As in any other area of law, perhaps not, but this amendment would be a great practical step forward.
I turn to the three amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, which she again put across so well. The use of SLAPPs, as she highlighted, needs action on several fronts to reduce or remove the incentives and dismantle the enabling environment. These amendments would enable the regulatory authorities to act more effectively to punish and deter UK firms from engaging in SLAPPs, first by imposing more meaningful fines on those conniving in the suppression of information on economic crime, and secondly by closing a loophole whereby, almost incredibly, a publication seeking to expose economic crime can face a heavily resourced attack using UK lawyers paid with the proceeds of crime. This is an abhorrent oversight that needs to be ended.
I turn to the two amendments in my name, Amendments 105 and 106. I will take these together as I have already been speaking for some time. Amendment 105 enables a public interest defence for someone investigating economic crime and attacked with a SLAPP. The defence is that their disclosure is relevant to the investigation of economic crime and publication is in the public interest. It provides a basis for a defence but is not a carte blanche for journalists; the court will need to be convinced. I hope the Minister will recognise its value as a basic protection for those exposing economic crime.
Amendment 106 needs a bit more unpacking. It enables the court to strike out all or part of a case that is being used to prevent disclosure or publication of information relevant to the investigation of an economic crime. Now, some may challenge the need for such a provision, saying that the courts can already strike out abusive cases, but while in theory a lawsuit filed for an improper purpose can be considered an abuse of the court's process and therefore disposed of pre-trial, in practice the courts have been highly reluctant to make any such inference.
I hope that the Committee will allow me to summarise why this is the case. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, there are currently two ways to dispose of a claim pre-trial: by filing a motion to strike under CPR 3.4 or a motion for summary judgment under CPR 24.4. Of these two motions, only the motion to strike explicitly provides for disposal of claims that represent an abuse of the court’s process. The associated practice direction explains that an abuse of process includes claims that are
“vexatious, scurrilous or obviously ill-founded”,
but there is no established legal definition for vexatious or scurrilous.
There is some case law that suggests that the improper use of the court process could be considered vexatious and therefore abusive. Does this help? Sadly, not really, because it is very doubtful that CPR 3.4 ever could be used in this way, for two reasons. First, improper purpose has been interpreted by the courts in an extremely narrow way. For example, filing a lawsuit with the sole purpose of financially ruining the target, which is a typical SLAPP tactic, is not considered improper by the court. Secondly, and more broadly, courts are universally and perhaps understandably reluctant to infer an improper purpose on the part of the filer where doing so would lead to the dismissal of the case. The Committee will therefore not be surprised to learn that I am not aware of any SLAPP case which has been filtered out on this basis.
So where else can we turn? Frivolous cases—that is, those that are entirely meritless—can be disposed of pre-trial using the aforementioned Civil Procedure Rules. However, the hurdle for such motions is insurmountably high. A motion to strike requires that a claim discloses no reasonable ground for bringing a claim. A motion for summary judgment requires the defendant to show that the claimant has no real prospect of success. The burden lies on the defendant to meet that threshold. So given the ambiguities inherent in defamation and privacy law, it is therefore exceptionally rare for such motions to ever succeed. I apologise for trying noble Lords’ patience with this explanation, but I hope I have gone some way to outline why in practice existing mechanisms to deal with abusive lawsuits are inadequate to deal with SLAPPs.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I begin by confessing to having been at the media law Bar for the past 45 years or so, so I know a little bit, but not a huge amount, about the subject we have been discussing. I want to salute the enthusiasm of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Cromwell, and my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston. As I said at Second Reading, this is a subject that needs to be discussed. It needs a through and very comprehensive debate.
The Long Title of the Bill is:
“A Bill to make provision about economic crime and corporate transparency; to make further provision about companies, limited partnerships and other kinds of corporate entity; and to make provision about the registration of overseas entities”.
Having read that, I go on to admire the ingenuity of the drafter of these amendments to fit them into the Long Title because, whereas there is a debate to be had, and it must be had, about SLAPPs, I question whether this Bill is the appropriate vehicle for that debate. That is a procedural issue.
My second point is that when I began at the defamation Bar in the mid-1970s, the economics of the media world were entirely different. Print media were riding high. They were selling millions of copies. The Sun was selling nearly 10 million copies a day. The Daily Mail, owned by Associated Newspapers, was selling a huge number of copies a day. Social media and online media had not been invented.
I used to be instructed by newspaper groups to go to the Queen’s Bench Masters’ corridor, acting for defendant newspapers, to run up legitimate legal arguments—they were not made up—which were there to starve the claimant, in those days called the plaintiff, out of the claim. The newspapers knew very well that they had a case to answer, but they had more money, so the police officer, schoolteacher or nurse who had allegedly been defamed in the local or national newspaper, unless they had an immensely rich backer, was never going to be able to withstand the onslaught of daily interlocutory applications made against them. Sometimes the master would accede to some of the applications that we made, and sometimes they did not, but the newspaper did not care because it had the cash. The individual—the claimant or plaintiff—did care, and sometimes was frightened off by the prospect of having to spend vast sums of money to recover his or her reputation in court.
The boot is now on the other foot. The print media is impoverished and no longer as rich as it used to be; the regional press is decimated, the local press more or less non-existent, and the national press is under some considerable strain. If you want to make money in the media world, you do not do it by publishing printed newspapers—you do it through the broadcast or online media. What we are now seeing is that those who are in the legitimate, perfectly lawful and praiseworthy business of writing as journalists, and those who publish written journalism in hard copy as publishing companies, are finding it increasingly difficult to withstand the economic might of those who disagree with what they have to say in their newspapers. Do not get me wrong: I entirely sympathise with people such as Catherine Belton, who was sued by various Russians—a range of very rich people. But one would get the impression from listening to the noble Lords who have spoken so far that the courts are weak and feeble arbitrators of the disputes that are before them.
For the last 45 years, I have seen cases struck out—I like the American expression, to strike, that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, used a moment ago. For the last 45 years, and long before that, before I was out of nappies, Queen’s Bench judges in the High Court in the High Court in London—and I dare say in Edinburgh and Belfast as well—have been striking out cases that were abusive, vexatious or frivolous. What the courts have to deal with is not just the law but the evidence. Just because a worthy defendant complains that they are the victim in a SLAPP case, the court cannot simply take the allegation on the face of it—it has to look at the evidence. By and large, evidence is something that you get to at trial, albeit it that evidence is occasionally tested at the interlocutory stages of an action.
While saluting the enthusiasm of the noble Lords who have spoken in favour of these amendments and who have ingeniously used this Bill to run the argument, I urge the Committee to be cautious, because the number of SLAPP cases is remarkably small compared to the number of writs issued each year. It is important that this Committee does not mislead the public about the extent of the problem. Legitimate claims have repeatedly been incorrectly described as SLAPPs by the media—but of course the media has an interest in calling them SLAPPs, for the economic reason that I have described.
In the recent case of Banks v Cadwalladr, decided by Mrs Justice Steyn only last year, she said:
“Ms Cadwalladr has repeatedly labelled this claim a SLAPP suit, that is a strategic lawsuit against public participation, designed to silence and intimidate her. I have set out a summary of my conclusions in paragraph 416 below. Although, for the reasons I have given, Mr Banks’s claim has failed, his attempt to seek vindication through these proceedings was, in my judgment, legitimate. In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part, it is neither fair nor apt to describe this as a SLAPP suit”.
Despite this, Mr Banks’s claim continues to be referred to as a SLAPP by large sections of the media. Of even greater concern is the reference by some journalists to individuals taking out what they call SLAPP orders—whatever they might be—echoing the media’s disingenuous campaign against privacy rights, including by pejoratively referring to privacy injunctions or agreed confidentiality clauses as gagging orders.
I do not want to be misunderstood. SLAPPs are a problem, but their prevalence is wildly overstated, and it seems to me—after 45 years of jogging around this racecourse—that solicitors are unlikely to be complicit in many of them. I rather suspect that more solicitors are dealt with by the Law Society, the SRA or the police for stealing client money than for running SLAPP cases.
Let us please just settle down a bit and not get overexcited by the one, two or three Russian oligarchs who have made an allegation that they have been defamed and who, on the evidence, have sometimes been proven right and sometimes wrong. The essential point is that a dispassionate judge, dispassionately looking at the evidence, will make a dispassionate ruling on what he or she has found, as Mrs Justice Steyn did in the Banks case, and the world goes on.
Being sued is indeed expensive and annoying, and it enables lawyers to be instructed and charge fees—I am afraid that is part of the way we do things in this country—but to suggest that SLAPPs are a plague and a menace just on the say-so of one, two or three cases, of which a number of us may or may not disapprove, does not prove the case. There is much work to be done to look into the question of SLAPPs and much debate to be had, but this Bill is not the place to have that debate. I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and other noble Lords who have brought forward these amendments because the matter needs to be discussed, but it is not properly discussed within the confines of this Bill.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, speaks as a lawyer. I speak as a journalist, with a long career in newspapers. I declare my interest as chair of the oversight committee at the Financial Times. I assure the noble and learned Lord that the very presence of the possibility of SLAPPs weighs very much on the minds of journalists. As he explained, newspapers no longer have the sort of money that might have funded the types of cases that he described and indeed worked on, but now there are some very important cases that they do need to pursue, and for that reason I very much support all the amendments in this group.
I will give just one example: the case of Wirecard, which was company fraud on a massive scale that cost a lot of people a lot of money. One brave journalist on the Financial Times had pursued the case for a long time, against huge opposition from the company and those around it who were making money from it. His editor was prepared to allow him to continue to pursue the case, at which point the German company hired a well-known London law firm which threatened all sorts of litigation and also criminal proceedings. It accused him, without any base, of having been interested in manipulating the share price of Wirecard in order to make a great deal of money. At that point, the Financial Times was risking a great deal of money and a huge hit to its reputation. The law firm bombarded the company and the journalist with letters threatening all sorts of things, but the Financial Times decided to stick with it. In the end, as we all know, that was the right decision and some people were able to salvage some honest money that would otherwise have been lost to an almighty fraud.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Before the next contribution, I apologise to the Committee but I must be in two places at once. I hope the Committee will forgive me for not being here when other speeches are made and the Minister winds up. If that is thought to be very rude, I shall sit here, and there we are, but if I may, would it be—
Lord Garnier (Con)
It is unprecedented and very rude of me, but there seems to be rather a lot going on at the moment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I will take 30 seconds to respond to a couple of the noble and learned Lord’s comments while the rest of the Committee decide whether they are happy. Apart from trying to remove from my mind the image that the noble and learned Lord planted earlier of him in his nappies and thanking him for his kind words, I say that he is exactly the kind of critical friend that we need to get this right. However, to suggest that it does not belong in this Bill, which is about economic crime and transparency, which SLAPPs directly impinge on, is disingenuously playing with words. SLAPPs are embedded in our system and directly relate to economic crime and transparency.
On his reference to there being very few cases, I made the point earlier that most cases never see the light of day because people are intimidated. That is exactly the point here. Our courts need defined tests to examine potential SLAPPs and sometimes say “That is not a SLAPP”, and sometimes say, “That is a SLAPP”. Some egregious cases will get that treatment. As my colleague to my left said, it is the threat of the sheer cost of getting to trial, along with all the other intimidatory tactics, such as of truckloads of documents turning up at your house on a Friday night, that we need to dissuade law firms pursuing.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I hate to intrude on disputes between lawyers, even though the lawyers in this case seem to be on different sides. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, I will intervene briefly as a journalist. At times, I was deputy editor and had charge of all the libel cases that came before us. In truth, there was an inequality of armaments. We had wonderful lawyers in-house, Mr Murdoch’s very deep pockets and an evidential base which would normally have been compiled by a journalist working to good standards. Many of the people wanting to sue us were not in that position at all; they took offence at something, whether it was right or wrong, but if the paper took a hard line, then they would go away.
We need to emphasise that the world has changed. Not only—and this is a perfectly valid point—are newspapers poor, but there are a number of extremely unscrupulous, very rich people, be they Russian oligarchs or any kind of oligarch, who are prepared to try anything they can to get a journalist or, even better, to stop the journalist publishing. I admire the courage of the FT in going ahead with the case the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, mentioned. I do not think many editors would have been so brave. This is the modern world. I am always disappointed when I find that legal firms are willing to go along with this kind of stuff.
There are not many laughs in the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell—not because of her, as she is an admirable chair, but because the subjects of the committee do not lead to a lot of laughs. However, I laughed out loud when I found that the maximum fine that can be applied by the Solicitors Regulation Authority is £25,000; that does not buy you a coffee with a decent KC any more. It is a different world with the people who are operating in it now.
I shall conclude as the noble Lord did. We have heard that it will take years before anything happens. It will not be this year because we are in recession, nor next year because there is a general election coming up; so it will go on, and those who are against making the change will continue their lobbying. We now have an opportunity, by the ingenious use of this Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, to force action now. We should seize it.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I support Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Stowell and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I think there is a strong consensus—I will come to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s point in a moment—that we should not just keep kicking this can down the road.
To give the Committee a little perspective, we are dragging our feet relative to the rest of the civilised world. The EU took steps a year ago to propose an anti-SLAPP directive and 34 US states already have anti-SLAPP laws in place. The need for reform is urgent. The figures put forward by the Foreign Policy Centre and members of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition show that SLAPPs are on the rise and that the UK is the number one originator of abusive legal actions. In fact, the UK has been identified as the legal source of SLAPPs. It is almost as frequent a source as all European Union countries and the US combined. That is the reality.
On journalists, obviously I defer to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, who has been in the hot seat herself. They play an important role in transparency and in shining a light on bad behaviour. We have heard before in this debate and in other committees about the Azerbaijani laundromat, which was investigated by the NCA only following the light that journalists shone on it.
I think my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier is misled in that the vast majority of these cases never get to court. They are invisible, other than to the person who has been subjected to that action. I can speak with some passion on this because it happened to me only a year or so ago by an organisation that had received billions of pounds of public money. The implication in the letter I received was essentially a SLAPP, so I had to take a view. No lawyer ever heard about that, let alone a judge. That is happening on a far more regular basis than people are prepared to accept.
We come to the last part, which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and others have talked about—that there is not enough room in the legislative calendar to get this done. But here we are: we have an economic crime Bill on the books, whose drafting work has been done by very clever people—at least as clever as parliamentary draftspeople. Surely, they and the Peers in this place can get together to get the right clauses and then we will have done it. I get so frustrated about this. The Government seem so feckless in not getting on with it. What is the excuse? It is crystal clear to any thinking person that we need to have some legislation on the statute book to contain this.
Of course, there must be safeguards against reckless accusations that damage the reputations of decent people and the right to recover costs where that happens. But, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, the reality is that there is an asymmetric warfare going on today which is completely different from anything that existed probably 20 years ago.
Here we have the chance for a clause that is well drafted—although I am a non-legal person—by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, with supporting clauses from my noble friend Lady Stowell and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. Why will the Government not sit down and have a proper, grown-up conversation about doing this? As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, please do not just fob us off with, “No, we’re not going to do it. Withdraw your amendment”. I am prepared to have a fight about this on Report and to lead a Division in the House, because I am sick of it. It is time for this Government to wake up from their complacency and always looking to delay until we do not exist any more. I strongly support these amendments and I hope the Minister will have a credible answer to the question of why they are not getting on with it.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will make one or two brief observations, because almost everything that could be said has been said.
First, it is important to distinguish between the threat of litigation and the use of litigation. If you look at the threat of litigation, the arguments so powerfully put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, go away. Going back more than 30 years, the late Captain Robert Maxwell MC was the past master in the use of threats. It was the courage of Bronwen Maddox of the Financial Times and her then editor that exposed him. She did not have to undergo an examination of what had happened because he died at almost exactly the same time. When people say, “This is very difficult. We need more time”, I say that we have had 30-plus years to deal with it.
Secondly, the problem of the use of litigation is, in a sense, a separate issue. As the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, makes clear, it is important that this is looked at separately. Most urgent is dealing with the threat. I very much hope that the Bill will also deal with use, but that involves different considerations because, by that stage, you will have involved a court and the balance between the actions of the court and the regulator is more difficult.
However, saying “This is all very difficult” is no excuse for delay. This is damaging to the UK, and things have got worse in 30 years for two reasons. First, most lawyers jealously guarded their reputation, but I am afraid that a number now take the view that any publicity is good publicity and they do not guard their reputations as carefully as they once did. That is not true of many, but a few take that view. Secondly, the cost of litigation has escalated out of all proportion to the position 30 years ago.
In response to, “This is all too difficult. We need more time”, I say that we have had 30 years. Even for the Ministry of Justice, that is a very long time. At times I felt that it could be said of the Ministry of Justice what was said of Philip II of Spain: if death came from Spain, we would all be immortal. Let us therefore hope that the ministry will engage with this and get on with the matter.
I want to make one final observation. There is always this very real problem of lawyers using funds. However, the fact that it is a real problem means that we should investigate it and not just put it in the “Too difficult” box. I am afraid that the Ministry of Justice has too many large “Too difficult” boxes as an excuse for inaction, and the time for inaction has ended. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, has taken the view that this is something on which we must make progress.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise to take part in this debate, which has been rich, full and powerful. I will seek not to repeat anything that has been said but simply to make a couple of points.
First, I offer the Green group’s support, showing that we have the broadest possible political support in your Lordships’ House for this approach. I also want to address the use by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, of “ingenious”. These amendments are not ingenious—they are obvious, reflecting an obvious step. It is interesting that a number of Members of your Lordships’ House, operating so far as I am aware entirely independently, have collectively brought together a group of amendments that forms a quite complete package. I am happy to accept that we can work on the detail, and I very much join others in wishing that the Government will work on the detail, but the package is there, approaching this issue from different angles.
I bring up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, in the previous group, which reflected on the failures of HMRC to deal with money laundering. That is just one element of the way in which our institutions that are supposed to be taking on economic crime are simply not up to the task or resourced for it. I join the media crew here as a former newspaper editor, which is the perspective I come from. In many of the worst cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, outlined earlier, it is not law enforcement or HMRC that uncover situations that bring gross abuses and crimes to public notice but journalists and NGOs bravely stepping out to expose what is happening. The Government are not capable of doing that, and we desperately need the fourth estate to take those actions. It fills a gaping hole which otherwise will not be filled, and crimes will not be exposed if the media and NGOs are not in a position to do this.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to an important report from the Foreign Policy Centre and Article 19. Last night an event in the Houses of Parliament looked at an updated report that they had prepared called London Calling—a very timely event. To look at some of the contents of the report, it says that the UK is
“a leading jurisdiction for domestic and trans-national SLAPP cases”.
A 2020 study by the Foreign Policy Centre found that 63 journalists working on financial crime and corruption in 41 countries identified the UK as the leading international jurisdiction for legal threats. I also make the point—it was made by others, but it needs to be driven home—that this report notes that the use or threat of SLAPPs “rarely make the public record”. So, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, says this is just a handful, it is the tip of an iceberg of people using the UK legal system for criminal purposes. It is not exposed, but we know that it is there.
I will make two final points. The world knows that that issue is there. If we think about the geopolitical state of the world now, this is broader even than the financial impacts. I note one estimate of the cost of worldwide economic crime: $274 billion. There is the financial cost, but also the impact in a world where the rule of law is under consistent attack, where we see not just individual oligarchs or kleptocrats but entire nation states attacking the rule of law. The UK is putting itself in a far weaker position by being the home where the kleptocrats, oligarchs and those states are able to use the law as a weapon.
Finally, we have mostly referred to the traditional mainstream media. Looking at the range of organisations involved in the initial launch of the Foreign Policy Centre and Article 19 report, on the panel were Tortoise Media, Open Democracy and English Pen. This concerns some very small, brave organisations with very few financial resources; it is not just the old legacy media, which still have some financial resources left. We have people stepping up to the plate. We think about London, but we have also seen a real rise of quality regional media in places such as Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield, where local media is stepping up and doing investigative journalism. They have almost no resources to be able to take on the threats; they need legal protection, so this needs to happen at all levels. Your Lordships’ House has come up with a package that takes us a long way towards where we need to be. We must get there now. As many others have said, we cannot wait.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to my noble friend Lady Stowell’s Amendments 87, 88 and 89 and congratulate her and her committee on their work. I also support Amendment 80 from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and Amendments 105 and 106 from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. As I said at Second Reading, this is a vital issue that must be covered in this Bill. In this group, we are discussing threats and lawsuits whose intention is to silence, intimidate or censor critics such as investigative journalists. So often, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, explained so well, they stem from economic crime.
This issue is not just about actual lawsuits. As others have said, often the matter will start with a threatening letter or even a phone call, which is enough to stop journalists or investigators from pursuing inquiries. That is why so few SLAPPs have come to court. I respectfully disagree with my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier on whether the few cases are any indication of whether this legislation and these amendments are required. These threats and vexatious potential lawsuits threaten not just journalists, campaigners, authors or academics but everyone’s rights in this country. They limit the rights of the public to have matters exposed, such as bribe-taking, poisoning water supplies with toxic chemicals, or general economic wrongdoing, which falls squarely within the remit of this Bill. Our courts are supposed to be there to protect ordinary people and small companies without large resources against those with more power, money and influence. Without these amendments, that protection will be fundamentally weakened when we have an opportunity to strengthen it.
I am not a lawyer, but Amendment 80 seems sensible to me. I believe that the Law Society supports judiciary-led gatekeeping. Amendments 87, 88 and 89 from my noble friend Lady Stowell seek to remove the incentives to issue these kinds of threats by introducing properly meaningful fines and intend that payments should not be able to come from the proceeds of economic crime. Again, that seems eminently sensible. I will listen carefully to my noble and learned friend but, equally, I urge him to listen carefully to the powerful arguments across all sides of this Committee and either accept these amendments or introduce his own.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I am not sure whether I can speak to this, being neither a journalist nor a lawyer. I am very sympathetic to what these amendments are trying to do. It must be right to try to prevent the abuse going on. However, I confess to feeling some niggling doubts. Journalists do not get everything right, and there are those who are not above embellishment or exaggeration. The balance of power is not only one way. A small company or individual may well find themselves up against a large media organisation, for example. Whatever we do, we must not make it harder or more expensive for innocent parties to defend themselves from unfair reporting, pre-emptively if necessary.
There is a balance to be found, and I am not yet convinced that these amendments quite reach it. That said, I agree that there is a problem with the current situation. It is being abused, and we need action sooner rather than later. So let us have the discussion and get something into the Bill. If not now, when?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I shall just add briefly a comment before we get to the wind-ups, in response to something that my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier said when he urged us not to overstate the problem of SLAPPs. I just wanted to make two brief points.
One has been made by many people already, which is that in fact, when it comes to SLAPPs we do not really know the scale of this problem, because so many of these cases never make it to a court of law. I wanted to make a second point in response to what my noble and learned friend said about not seeking to overstate the problem, and his questioning my and others’ ingenuity in bringing forward amendments in the Bill. My understanding of the reason for the Bill is that economic crime is a real problem. So, if we are legislating because that is the real problem, and we are aware that some of the most significant perpetrators of economic crime have ways of preventing the evidence that would lead them to be potentially subject to the justice system because they operate in that kind of market, as it were, surely we ought to seek to close that gap. Whether or not the number of them that might qualify under that heading is large or small, there is a gap. As I say, the objective here is tackling economic crime, and our amendments are only about economic crime.
I understand very much that the broader question of SLAPPs will have to be returned to, because the whole issue of SLAPPs cannot be addressed in an economic crime Bill. However, my amendments and others in this group are trying to make sure, in the context of economic crime, that those who may be the most significant perpetrators of it on a large scale have nowhere to hide.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been a fantastic debate and I will not add any pearls of wisdom and substance, but I would just like to just say something about process in response to the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. In the event that the Government are unable to satisfy what I think is the strong view of your Lordships that something needs to be done, I think we can pledge that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and I will work well within our own group to make sure that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, about pushing this further on Report will certainly have some legs from our point of view.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I will just add a word, first to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. The fact is that most SLAPPs are related to economic crime, and I think she was being a little modest perhaps in that area. This would certainly be a very good start—half a loaf is better than no loaf, and all those sorts of aphorisms. Colleagues who have spoken around the House have left me feeling quite optimistic, much more than I expected, I have to say, but then a pessimist says that things could not be any worse, and an optimist assures you that they can.
I am heartened in particular by the comments from some of the far heavier-weighted legal minds than mine—I am neither a journalist nor a lawyer—and by their willingness to grip this. There are definitional and other issues involved here, but if I may quote my colleague, they are difficult but doable. We ought to take that to heart.
My question is whether the Minister will rise to the challenge of working with us. This is not a question of us putting something up to be shot down; it is an offer to work together, drawing on the resources of this House, to put this right in the Bill, which, as we have exhaustively explained, is its natural home.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank everyone for the extraordinary debate that we have had on this issue today. I continue in the vein of looking for optimism in the outcomes of some of the discussions that we have had. I pay particular tribute to Members of this House who have joined Members of the other place in relentlessly pursuing this issue, to the extent that there is now a far greater understanding—not only in Parliament but in the wider country and the communities particularly affected—about the issue of SLAPPs, which perhaps a year or two ago was not understood at all.
To start by going back to the very basics, SLAPPs are, as we know, strategic lawsuits against public participation, abuses of the legal system, generally by the super-rich—and, it is important to remember, they are intended to harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent. I am not sure that that element has quite come through, although everyone is fully aware of it. We have talked today about this practice being embedded in the system and its close relationship to the scourge of economic crime. In other debates that we have had on the Bill so far, we have highlighted the real extent of economic crime facing this country. All of us have an obligation and commitment to come together to work out how we are going to deal with it.
As we have heard, the use of SLAPPs has been linked to Russian oligarchs. That is inevitable, given what has happened over the past year, particularly with regard to looking at ways to prevent journalists from reporting on their links to economic crime, with particular reference to the war in Ukraine. As we have seen, SLAPPs are not only used by those committing economic crime, but the amendments proposed here narrow the definition to those concerned with suppressing information on economic crime. The wider point which we need to take on board is about the serious concerns that SLAPPs are now being used to suppress democracy globally. It is important to put it as far as this.
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has had to go, but I would like to say to him that his attempt to reassure us on the numbers has not had that effect at all. It has been clearly stated that the small numbers that reach court highlight and emphasise the problem that we have.
I shall go on to ask the Minister to comment on the view coming from the other place that SLAPPs are under a separate jurisdiction and therefore should be under a separate Bill. We have heard some great arguments as to why we should look at these amendments seriously and incorporate them into this Bill.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to their amendments and clearly given us a full understanding of the purpose behind them and how they will contribute to the overall objective. From our position on these Benches, we look forward to engaging in full and detailed conversations as to how, as I suspect will be necessary, we present further amendments on Report. We support the principle of the Government bringing forward effective legislation and will continue to call out this issue wherever it occurs, whether on this estate or elsewhere, when anyone in a position of influence puts undue pressure on someone to make sure that important matters do not see the light of day.
I want to highlight some of the reasons why feelings are running so high. We need to understand and remember the severe power imbalance between the claimant and the defendant. In this context, journalists and media outlets are put at a disadvantage from the outset, as we have heard today. Defending a legal case can, as we know, be prohibitively expensive and a huge drain on resource. As we need to emphasise every time we speak about this, SLAPPs can create significant financial jeopardy for journalists and media outlets, with legal costs starting to accrue long before cases get anywhere near reaching court.
Putting ourselves in the place of those who have been subjected to this, I think that the process of defending a legal case in this sphere can feel like punishment: a fear of devastating financial impact, potential loss of savings, their homes, pensions and livelihoods if a case goes to court. The effort in putting a case together involves massive distraction from the work that people are trying to do. As others have said—it is a serious charge but one we should take seriously—this is having the impact of undermining the basis of democracy.
We have talked about how libel laws in the UK are weighted, but we also need to emphasise the issue of libel tourism. It remains an issue in the UK. The bar to bring a case here is problematically low, and the use of privacy and data protection laws is increasing. We need to consider that SLAPPs in the UK are often pursued against individuals rather than the organisation they work for, which undermines the resources available to mount an adequate defence.
One of the themes running through all our discussions on the Bill is the reputational damage to London and, therefore, the country. London’s obvious position as a global hub for the super-rich has compounded the problem. We must make sure that clients cannot use threats of legal action to clean up their image and remove unfavourable information from the public domain. There has been insufficient recognition by the UK Government and official bodies of the connection between protecting media freedom and countering corruption.
Returning to the personal, I suggest that other factors include the psychological impact of intimidation and harassment on those subject to legal challenges. That has not been sufficiently recognised, and such things lead to a massive impact on mental health.
Will the amendments before us today tackle those issues? I think that is a subject for further discussion, but the main question that has been put repeatedly from across the Committee today is whether the Government are serious about measures to end these practices. We had some optimism in July last year when there seemed to be a commitment that legislative reform measures would come forward, but where are they? Are they being moved forward? Will the Government follow through by supporting the measures proposed in amendments to the Bill?
We have heard that this is a serious issue. It is urgent for so many reasons that we have discussed today. My last question for the Minister is: will the Government take this opportunity to act, recognising how urgent the situation is, and meet with us to discuss ways that we can move this important matter forward?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I warmly thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and who have spoken to me directly on this issue. I also thank noble Lords for the enormous amount of thought and consideration that has been put into this issue by those who have spoken. There is significant strength of feeling across the Committee on this important issue. I begin by providing an assurance that the Government share those concerns and that it is clear to the Government that we should take legislative action against SLAPPs. As the Government have set out, for many reasons that have been mentioned in this debate, we are firmly committed to legislating effectively, comprehensively and without undue delay on this issue.
Noble Lords will not necessarily be entirely happy when I say that we do not think this Bill is the correct vehicle for tackling this issue. There are essentially two reasons for that. One is that here we are dealing with economic crime. I take my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s technical point about the scope of the Bill, but the major issue here is that, even if we were to put in an amendment to this Bill, it would still be too narrow because we are not covering matters that are not economic crime, such as freedom of expression, political interference, national security and so forth. The Government’s preference would be to handle the entire landscape of SLAPPs in one place, and that is not this Bill.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
The Minister talks about introducing some SLAPPs legislation “without undue delay”, but there is no possibility of a timetable to introduce that. We are only 15 or so months away from a general election, and the legislative timetable is jammed solid already. There is no fixed slot for it to come in. I utterly reject the idea that the Government want the perfect to be the enemy of the good: “We are going to do everything in one Bill”. Why not do this bit now, which will take very little parliamentary time? As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, it will deal with probably 80% of the problem, because we know that shutting down debate on economic crime is probably our biggest problem. When in 10 or 15 years’ time—this point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas—the Government finally find the perfect moment, although some of us will be dead by then, they could then repeal the relevant clauses of this Bill and do it all in one bit. But I utterly reject the pathetic excuse that this is not the right moment. I ask my noble and learned friend to be a little more straightforward in his commitment.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I entirely understand the frustrations felt by my noble friend Lord Agnew and others. It is not to be ruled out that we could find an appropriate legislative vehicle for this matter before the next general election. That is not to be ruled out. However, I cannot today go further than to say that this issue will be brought forward by the Government when parliamentary time allows. That is normally a long-grass phrase—kicking it into the long grass. I regard it today, and say it today, as a short-grass phrase because I am not at the moment giving up on having legislation relatively soon, but I can give absolutely no commitment on that matter.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I ask the noble and learned Lord, as a little test of this commitment, is there is a draft Bill? If there is one, his assurance is really wonderful but, without one, is it not just a phrase for the long grass?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I can tell your Lordships that the Government have not been idle in preparing possible drafts to deal with this matter, and I am very happy to keep in close contact with noble Lords between now and Report on progress and to discuss as widely as we need to how we should approach this matter.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
What the Minister is saying is potentially helpful. His initial statement was almost verbatim what we got at Second Reading and in previous Bills. I could almost set it to music now, I have heard it so many times, but we seem to be getting somewhere. Will he clarify whether he is happy to continue discussions with us about these Bills, which, apparently, the non-idle Government have been working on or about a possible amendment to this Bill? Will he clarify which one we are addressing here?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
It is the former. The second point here is that the Government are not happy, for reasons that I shall now, I hope, go into a little detail about, about the actual amendments being proposed here. I preface that by saying that we should not overlook the fact that there is one enormous conceptual issue behind all this, which is the question of access to justice. This is probably the first time that anyone has ever legislated against someone bringing something to court, which is something that we need to stop and think about. Where is the balance? If I may say so, reference has been made to the rule of law, and it is somewhat ironic to say that we must uphold the rule of law by penalising someone who seeks access to justice. That is a very difficult area, and we need to find a balance. The Government would like to explore further how that balance is to be found because, in the Government’s respectful view, it is not yet found in the amendments before the Committee today.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I think that we are actually in agreement on that, and I hope that I made it clear earlier that what we need to do is to work together to get this right with critical friends, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who will bring a forensic examination of whether the work is right, but I go back to an earlier comment that this is difficult. Yes it is, but it is not impossible.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I entirely accept that it is not impossible and, to take the phrase of a noble Lord earlier, that it is actually doable. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who used that phrase.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I was hoping that someone with a great deal more legal knowledge than me would rise to speak, but I feel that I need to challenge the Minister’s comment that this proposal is unprecedented. Other noble Lords will be able to say more, but we have a process of law about vexatious litigants who are unable to bring cases. There is a whole set of rules there, and there are rules in the family courts that eventually stop cases being brought. So it is not the case that this is something that has been miraculously conjured out of the air that does not exist in any form whatever in the legal framework.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, on that last point I had primarily in mind the amendments that seek to criminalise bringing cases before the courts, which is the subject of some of the amendments.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am sorry. I appreciate the access that the Minister is giving us. I am really following up the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made. The Government are not being inactive. Can the Minister tell us how many people are in the dedicated team that is currently pursuing this issue? It is complicated, as he pointed out, and Government do want to get more depth on this, so how many people are now working on this, and when does he think they might actually come up with something that could then go into a draft Bill? In a sense, what is the timetable and what is the amount of horsepower that is going into that timetable?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord a timetable. I cannot tell him how many people are working on it, but I can tell him that important work is being done. I am not in a position, and I very much regret that, to go further than that today, but I am prepared to keep in close touch with your Lordships between now and Report to share progress and thoughts on whether there is a legislative vehicle that can conveniently—and soon—be introduced.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I am sorry. I will press the Minister a little more on that. When will we first hear from him on that update on progress?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Can I write to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on that point?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Can I ask that we are all included in the correspondence?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Absolutely. I will write to everybody after this debate and try to elaborate a little on what I have said. I hope noble Lords understand that in terms of my boss, I recently had a change of personnel, and it takes a little while to allow the dust to settle, if I may put it like that.
The only other thing I would respectfully draw noble Lords’ attention to, and I fully accept there is a certain amount of controversy as to how big this problem is, is that the Solicitors Regulation Authority issued a warning notice on 28 November 2022, which led to that authority undertaking investigations in relation to SLAPP complaints, so we are not without a regulatory instrument to at least hold the line until we are able to legislate. That, as far as one can tell, has had a salutary effect on the practical consequences of SLAPPs. It is not the case that nothing has been done.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that the amendment which I have put forward criminalises access to justice. It does not do that; it criminalises a threat of litigation that is unwarranted and known to be unwarranted without reasonable excuse. It is perfectly simple, but I would be very unhappy to leave this Room today with the thought that the Minister has in mind that my amendment is criminalising access to justice.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I expressed myself a little loosely. Let me put it like this: in the Government’s view, this is not an area where we should introduce the criminal law, whether it is in relation to pre-litigation or in any other respect in terms of litigation. One is faced with a very basic question of when is something that is a robust and justifiable approach to litigation in a pre-action letter a threat. That is not straightforward, in the Government’s view. The Government’s view is that this is not a matter where the criminal law should intrude.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend, but his reference to the Solicitors Regulation Authority prompts me to ask him a couple of questions. He makes reference to access to justice and to the Government being nervous about legislating in a way that would call that into question. As I said at the start, the amendments that I have tabled, Amendments 87, 88 and 89, are directed at the Solicitors Regulation Authority. As my noble and learned friend has already said, it issued a notice recently to reinforce the fact that this kind of activity is unacceptable.
My amendments seek to codify that yet further and give it the power, which it does not feel it has sufficiently clearly in law, to act when a solicitor is conducting themselves in a way that could be supporting somebody trying to prevent proper inquiry into what could be economic crime. I am struggling because I understand the argument my noble and learned friend is making about parliamentary time and the Government wanting to legislate for this in the round, but I also know as a former business manager that it is very difficult for any individual government department to be confident, even if it wants and hopes to be able to legislate in the way he is indicating that he and his department do, because the timetable is not in its control.
There is frustration in this context because we know that this is about only economic crime and that we are proposing amendments that would tackle only economic crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has said several times—maybe this is a bigger issue than even the SRA is telling me. This would make a difference none the less. In my humble view—I am not a lawyer—I do not think we are proposing anything that would limit people’s access to justice. When my noble and learned friend goes back to his department, even if he cannot make any kind of commitment at the Dispatch Box today, which I understand, could he at least have a conversation with others that is a bit more open-minded than his colleagues seem to have been on this matter up to this point?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I can certainly have that conversation. I do not want to give the impression that the Government are close-minded. We are very prepared to legislate and have said that we are willing; the question is finding the right vehicle. I will deal with my noble friend’s amendments in a moment. When I said a moment ago that there are issues around access to justice, I meant no more than that. We have to be very careful in talking about approaching a court and whether that is in some way unprofessional, subject to sanctions or otherwise criticisable.
As far as the Government can see—if I may think aloud—there are probably two essential mechanisms to deal with this, one of which is in part reflected in some of these amendments, although the Government would not entirely agree with how it is put. One is an early disposal mechanism and the other, critically, is a cost protection measure so that people are not exposed to costs. As has been said many times, the risk of having to pay the costs is the real imbalance. Those are two general thoughts that, I hope, illustrate that the Government are not closing their mind to this. We are thinking about it and hope to come forward with a comprehensive, balanced solution, but today I cannot say exactly when.
With that background, I will deal with the specific amendments, which the Government are sympathetic to but cannot accept. On Amendment 80 from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as I have already said, new criminal offences should be created with care. That is especially true when targeting professionals with responsibility for assisting persons to achieve access to justice. There is a risk of inadvertently undermining access to justice in that way and the Government’s view, as I have said, is that a criminal approach in this area is not correct and would in any case create quite a lot of difficulties around proof beyond reasonable doubt, the concept of reasonable excuse, et cetera. Criminal offences need to be clear and we are very reluctant to see a new criminal offence created. That is our position on Amendment 80—it is too far-reaching. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in due course to withdraw it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Briefly, I urge my noble friend to look at the correspondence I have had with the SRA specifically about the Bill. The SRA makes it clear that what I am proposing by way of these amendments would give greater clarity to the fact that SLAPP cases which relate to economic crime would also not be subject to the current cap but would benefit from that cap being lifted, which the Government are seeking to do. To put it another way, my amendments are trying to make sure that the intention of what is already in the Bill is achieved in the way that the SRA is asking for.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Indeed. I respectfully suggest to my noble friend that she may have copied the letter to which she refers to the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice recently.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
It was also copied to the Minister’s office.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Indeed. I suggest that I meet with my noble friend and we go through it with a fine-toothed comb. I am happy to meet with anybody else who wants to go through particular amendments with a fine-toothed comb and see where we are, because there is no point in arguing about things where we are ad idem.
The same point arises on Amendment 89, which relates to POCA—I pronounce it “poker”, but others pronounce it “pocker”—and Section 327 of that Act. Amendment 89 aims to stop corrupt claimants using their criminal property to pay their legal fees. Our view on Section 327 of POCA is that that is already effectively covered because it makes it a criminal offence for anyone to convert, conceal or transfer criminal property, so the payment for legal services using criminal property is already a crime. I am led to believe that the Solicitors Regulation Authority will shortly publish new guidance on the application of POCA in relation to solicitors’ responsibilities in that respect. So our position on our amendment is that it is already covered, but again, let us discuss this in detail so that we can get it right. Formally speaking, for those reasons I ask my noble friend in due course not to press her amendment today.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his Amendments 105 and 106, and for the care and attention that he has devoted to this. Again, the Government’s position is that these amendments do not quite cut the mustard, if I may put it that way.
As drafted, Amendment 105, which seeks to create a new defence, would cut across several other areas of jurisprudence. There is a common law public interest defence for a breach of confidence, and a very careful balancing, in Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013, as to when you can have a public interest defence in defamation cases. This kind of provision should not be rushed through without a careful examination of its side effects on other legislation and potential unintended consequences. Neither does the amendment quite attack what the Government would suggest is the main problem, which is not whether you have a defence but whether you have the money to fight it in the first place. You need some cost protection to be built into the SLAPPs framework.
The same point applies to Amendment 106 on the power to strike out. There are already powers to strike out, and the noble Lord makes it clear that we need to clarify those powers—but one cannot get away from the fact that, typically speaking, a strike-out application is very expensive and complicated, because you are trying to throttle a case at the beginning and the court is having to go through a great deal of work to get there. In the end, a strike-out will probably not be effective in achieving what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. We share the objective, but we are not sure that this is the right way to do it.
While we are sympathetic to the sentiment behind the amendments, from a technical point of view, the Government do not think that they are quite right. Unscrupulous claimants could exploit all this by ensuring that the process remains very complicated, long and burdensome. That is the Government’s position on these amendments. I repeat that I am very happy to engage so far as I can in a dialogue with noble Lords to see whether we can make further progress on the technicalities of this issue and look for a proper legislative vehicle in which to carry it forward.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I do not believe the Minister addressed the point that I and a number of other noble Lords raised about the international dimension of this, and the UK’s position in the international framework. Noble Lords may have seen that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, was joined in this Committee by some guests, one of whom was Sebastien Lai, the son of Jimmy Lai, who was a victim of what has been labelled lawfare by the Chinese state in Hong Kong. We are also seeing British institutions being used as a weapon for that lawfare. Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a true international reputational issue and that the whole rule of law across the world is under attack?
Reflecting on what the Minister said, I think we heard something of a hint about the Government’s thinking that cost protection could be one way of addressing this issue. That fails to address the point made by the Labour Front Bench and others that, even if there is cost protection, an enormous amount of time, energy and stress goes into a case. Even if you are able to take away the financial threat, you are taken away from doing other journalism if you have to spend months engaging in a case.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. I am perfectly prepared to accept that there is an international aspect. The Solicitors Regulation Authority is on the case, it has issued its warning notice—fired its warning shot—and that is having an effect, so it is not as if the position is not being tackled. The question is about legislation, and the need to get it right from a rule of law and an access to justice point of view. There is a conflict here, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, pointed out. One has some misgivings about this because, as was also said earlier, journalists are not always right, and one must bear that in mind. If you have ever been on the receiving end of the tabloid press as a defendant, you will know that they still have not inconsiderable power if you have no money to defend yourself.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
If I may say so, one of the formative experiences of my childhood was being on the receiving end of tabloid journalism, and it is something I will never forget. That does not alter my commitment to getting this right.
I am encouraged by the Minister saying that my amendments do not quite cut the mustard—“do not quite” is a pretty good score in my book. I agree with him that early access will be a key feature of the right answer here, and cost protection, depending on what form it takes, is potentially helpful. He constantly prays in aid access to justice is a big issue, and I agree that the definitional issue of a SLAPP is very important. However, in the conversations he has promised to have, I would want him to make a distinction between harassment and denying the right to justice. Denying the right to justice, the ability to go to court if you wish, is not what I am about—I am about where people have no intention of going to court if they can possibly avoid it but are simply harassing people who want to bring economic crimes into the light. The Minister has given us a hint that there is a government Bill in draft here. I am taking that in good faith; I hope that faith will be well placed and that we will see it soon.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Again, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. The key problem is to distinguish access to justice from harassment. It is quite difficult, but it can be done. That is my answer to that question. On where the Government are, as I said before, we are working on drafts, but I cannot go any further than that until I know whether there is a legislative vehicle and which it can be. I am sorry not to be able to commit the Government at the Dispatch Box today any further than that but, as I said, I am hoping—and I can only express as a hope—that this is a short-grass and not a long-grass issue.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee, I perhaps should have declared my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong in my last intervention.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to Minister for his response and look forward to discussing these issues with him. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. I commend her and her committee for the work they have done in investigation and taking evidence on this issue. I admire the guts and determination of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the fury of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, on this issue.
I do not want to speak for too long: we have had a very long debate. The only dissenting voice was that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. Your Lordships may recall that I said that, when the results of the consultation were looked at, the claimants’ lawyers were saying, “There’s nothing to see here, guv. It’s all the ordinary rough and tumble of litigation in this country”. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, referred to his experiences in the bear garden. I remember the bear gardens—I remember appearing in a bear garden for the leader of the Opposition in the Singapore Parliament; it was not an easy position. He was suing the Straits Times for libel, and the application to strike out was made on the grounds that he had no reputation in this country. When he died, some years later, he had obituaries in the Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian.
I know the games that these media lawyers play. They do not face up to some of the realities that we in the criminal courts perhaps have to face from time to time. But I have the highest regard for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, in his professional capacity, so nothing that I say should be taken as derogatory to him—otherwise, subject to professional privilege, I might find myself in court.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Just to clarify, as I said, the Government’s position is that it is not appropriate to introduce a criminal offence in relation to access to justice. It is not a question of just having another offence. Access to justice is a very important area, and we are on a slippery and possibly Orwellian slope if we start saying that it is criminal for someone to go to the law on some point. It is a very difficult area—that was all I said.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
So, according to the Minister, it is not criminal for a person to threaten litigation, with all the expense and worry that that involves and the way that it crimps the investigation of crime. He is saying that it is not unlawful and should not be criminal. There are criminal offences that cover conduct far less morally bankrupt than that, which is what I hope we shall discuss with the Minister before Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Etherton
“(a) constitutes the offences of fraud, false accounting, money laundering or offences under any binding sanctions regime, whether at common law or in primary or secondary legislation,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a shorter and more focused definition of “economic crime” than is presently to be found in Clause 180(1)(a) and Schedule 9.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I preface my remarks by emphasising that what I say about this amendment and the other amendments in this group is not intended in any way to qualify or undermine the broad objectives of the legislation. They are intended to make the legislation better.
I will focus for the moment on Amendment 81, which addresses the definition of economic crime to be found in Clause 180. The amendment has the support of the Law Society and the Bar Council. In the current wording of the Bill, the definition relates to only three matters. The first is the disclosure obligations under Clauses 175 to 178; the second is that by virtue of Clause 181(2C) it applies to the Law Society’s powers to impose a fine in cases relating to economic crime; the third circumstance is that it applies to the new legal services regulatory objective in Clause 183 of promoting the prevention and detection of economic crime.
Under the current definition in Clause 180, economic crime is defined by reference to a long list of offences, common law and statutory, extending over two and a half pages in Schedule 9. The definition of economic crime would be further extended under the Government’s proposal to add a new Schedule 10, which is directed to the failure to prevent fraud. As we heard in the last debate, although I think it is right to say that none of the amendments relating to SLAPPs is tied to any definition of economic crime in the existing Bill, SLAPPs would have to be in some way connected to some definition, and that may be wider than one would otherwise contemplate economic crime to comprise.
The definition of economic crime in Clause 180, by reference to Schedule 9, and its extended meaning by reference to the proposed Schedule 10, raises the fundamental question of what this Bill is actually about. Under Schedule 9, for example, it includes theft, and under the proposed Schedule 10 it includes false statements by company directors.
The Government’s intention, however, as I understood it, is that the Bill is directed to a specific type of criminal activity—fraud, false accounting, money laundering and the breaches of sanctions. Those are the activities which Amendment 81 sets out. Those elements were identified in a meeting which I had with Dame Margaret Hodge, who has played a significant role in the promotion of this type of legislation. Those activities—fraud, false accounting, money laundering and the breach of sanctions—chime with the Bill’s three key objectives, mentioned at the very beginning of the Explanatory Notes, which are focused on the abuse of corporate structures. That is what the Bill is about: the abuse of corporate structures to launder money, hide assets obtained unlawfully and prevent restitution of such assets by making them irrecoverable. To include theft under Schedule 9 goes far outside that type of activity, as it would embrace, for example, a straightforward theft of any object in any circumstances, which has no economic significance other than the loss of value to the owner of the object.
Further, Section 19 of the Theft Act 1968, mentioned in Schedule 10, as I have said, makes it an offence for any officer of a company or unincorporated association knowingly to make a false or deceptive written account with intent to deceive members or creditors. This is a very broad offence, and again not necessarily related to the objectives of the Bill, as they are explained in the Explanatory Notes, and as I understand them to be. I suggest, therefore, that the Government should focus on the real objective of the Bill and define economic crime accordingly and consistently, rather than by reference to a long list of common-law and statutory offences, which are diffuse and wide-ranging.
That brings me to my next point, which concerns good legislation and proper drafting. To define economic crime by reference to a wide range of offences over two and a half pages is not good drafting.
It complicates rather than simplifies the law. It also gives rise to potential difficulties if any legislation mentioned is repealed and re-enacted in the same or a different way. Of course, in these circumstances there is provision by way of regulation for the Secretary of State to add to or detract from Schedule 9, but there has to be an alteration. By defining the constituent elements of economic crime, as is done in Amendment 81, there is a clear steer as to the objectives of the Bill, and any change in legislative offences will not require an alteration to the Bill. Schedule 9 and proposed Schedule 10 would cease to be relevant. Amendments 82, 83 and 84 are all consequential on Amendment 81.
I now move to the next substantive amendment to Clause 183, which introduces a new regulatory objective into the Legal Services Act. Amendment 90 is signed by my noble friends Lord Verdirame and Lord Pannick and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Unfortunately, none of them is able to be here today. I am very grateful to them for their support. This amendment also has the support of the Law Society and the Bar Council. Currently, the provisions in Clause 183 relating to the new regulatory objective are far too wide in the following respects. First, it is not confined to the conduct of the lawyer but is expressed as general enforcement of the law relating to economic crime. It turns the regulator of legal services into a general enforcer of the law. Secondly, Clause 183 is not confined to legal activity as defined by Section 10 of the Legal Services Act 2007. In broad terms, legal activity is defined in the 2007 Act to mean the conduct of litigation, advocacy and legal advice and assistance.
Thirdly, the clause does not focus on what is critical, namely the misconduct of the lawyer in this context, which is facilitation or collusion by that lawyer in economic crime. Facilitation or collusion by lawyers in economic crime are the principal areas of misconduct in relation to lawyers mentioned to me in my meeting with Dame Margaret Hodge. Fourthly, it does not make clear that the proposed legislation on economic crime does not trump legal professional privilege where that applies or to the “professional principles”, which will remain one of the regulatory objectives under Section 1 of the 2007 Act.
Just addressing this last point, in any legal proceedings legal professional privilege precludes the usual obligation to disclose and permit the inspection of all relevant documents. The privilege, which is the privilege of the client, not their lawyer, is a fundamental common-law constitutional right on which the proper administration of justice rests. There are two aspects to the right—first, legal advice privilege, which applies to communications made confidentially for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice, whether or not litigation is contemplated or pending and, secondly, litigation privilege, which applies to communications which come into existence for the purpose of litigation.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
In supporting what the noble and learned Lord has said, I underline the importance of legal professional privilege; I recall it in many cases but one in particular, where a judge remarked that the worst thing he had ever done was to open up this subject in a particular case. We deal with this at our peril.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is with more than a little trepidation that I will speak on this group of amendments, with two noble and learned Lords sat behind me. In his opening observations, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, got the SLAPPs argument a bit back to front. My noble friend Lord Thomas worded the SLAPPs amendment in the way that he did so as not to include the non-economic crime aspects of SLAPPs. That was exactly to avoid the issue that I think the noble and learned Lord highlighted in saying that SLAPPs would drag other criminal definitions into the Bill. My noble friend’s careful wording was designed specifically to avoid that, but no matter.
More generally, there is a functionality in Schedule 9 which, if taken away, we will lose: the ability to put offences in and take them out using regulation. That is included in Clause 83 on page 165. If the noble and learned Lord is successful in his campaign, he needs to consider putting that back in, because in future we do not want to have to use primary legislation to achieve that objective. That is something to look at.
On the final amendment to Clause 183, Amendment 90 —with the names of the four riders of the apocalypse on it—again I take the noble and learned Lords’ points about client privilege. I have one question for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. If a solicitor is taken on and starts through their client privilege to find things that they do not like, I assume that they would be encouraged to walk away from that client. Not having been in that situation, I would like to understand what the professional advice is. Do they carry on and sit behind privilege or is a solicitor essentially encouraged to walk away from a client when they begin to uncover things through that privilege that they find to be illegal or immoral?
There is another debate to be had at the beginning of the next sitting, where we talk about failure to prevent. It is quite clear that the point raised here cuts into the failure to prevent debate. I encourage both noble and learned Lords to be present for that because their point here is absolutely relevant to the failure to prevent debate, and we have to have those two debates almost together. I hope that they will be able to make time on Thursday to join in that debate.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I do not have an enormous amount to add but I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his comments and for the full explanation of the amendments before us in this group.
I will add a concern about the removal of the schedule naming the offences. Perhaps we will need to have a better understanding of why that would be an advantage, but I remain to be convinced on that point. On Amendment 90, I do not have much to add to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which lead to a need for greater clarification before we can move on from this.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I will first take Amendments 81 to 84, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
Whereas our lengthy debate earlier in the day was directed at expanding the Bill, this is directed at narrowing it. It may not be a total surprise if I say that the Government are not very happy about proposals to narrow the scope of the Bill. As was said, these amendments arise, apparently, with the support of the Law Society and the Bar Council. The Government met the Law Society and the Bar Council on a number of occasions and the question of the definition of economic crime was gone into in some detail, and one is a little surprised to see that this matter is being persisted in.
The list of the offences in Schedule 9 is very close to the list of offences in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which applies to deferred prosecutions in various cases, which are often relevant in financial matters, and, although not exactly the same, they are based on that definition.
The other introductory comment that I would, if I may, make is that, while the overwhelming bulk of the legal profession upholds the highest standards, much of this Bill would have been unnecessary were that true of all legal professionals. It is against that background that the Government are reluctant to run the risk of introducing loopholes into the Bill by reducing the scope of Schedule 9.
The first point to note is that the definition of economic crime in Clause 180 and Schedule 9 applies right across the Bill and includes the information-sharing measures in Clauses 175 and 176. Those measures, for example, entitle bank A, when it receives from bank B a large sum of money, to ask bank B whether it is a proper transaction, so there is information-sharing between financial institutions. Clause 176 enables a financial institution to notify a platform, for example, that it has concerns about particular transactions or clients. These are pretty essential powers in the Bill, and the definition of economic crime applies to those powers as well. In the Government’s view, it would not be desirable to have two definitions of economic crime across the Bill as a whole.
The definition applies to other legal services measures in Part 5 of the Bill, which amend the Solicitors Regulation Authority fining limit and information provisions. So for consistency and ease of understanding, the Government’s position is that it is sensible to have a single definition of economic crime through the Bill, and not reduce that definition at this stage. Just to make an illustration, there was some suggestion that introducing the word “theft” would go a bit too far. It may in a certain situation be quite difficult to say whether something was fraud or theft—it might well be both—but it is not the sort of argument that the Government feel that one should get into. Having worked with the Law Society of England and Wales and the Bar Council on these matters, the Government have clarified in the Explanatory Notes which offences are likely to be most relevant to the financial sector. They have not excluded them, but they have indicated that fraud, money laundering, terrorist financing, bribery, and any offences under regulations made in relation to money laundering are likely to be the ones that the profession should concern itself with most in practice. But it is important that regulators should not be unduly constrained in the ambit of the definition of economic crime in this Bill.
I can reassure noble Lords that all the existing safeguards that apply to regulators under public law principles, including what is proportionate and fair, continue to apply. Section 3 of the Legal Services Act provides that the Legal Services Board must have regard to the principles of transparency, accountability, proportionate action and consistency and target only those cases where action is required. The new objective in relation to economic crime fits within that framework. One is to an extent tilting at windmills here to try to reduce the scope of this major piece of legislation designed to tackle the very serious problems that noble Lords have now debated at length. On that basis, I shall ask the noble Lord in due course to withdraw his Amendment 81 and not press his other amendments.
I turn to Amendment 90, which affects the regulatory objective. The essential aspect of the amendment is that the objective is too wide and that we should spell out that it is all subject to legal professional privilege. Those are the essential points that were made.
I will take the point about legal professional privilege first. The Government entirely accept and agree with the noble and learned Lord that legal professional privilege is a fundamental principle of English law. It protects the confidentiality of communication between a lawyer and client in terms of legal advice, and ensures complete fairness in legal proceedings in terms of litigation privilege, for example. However, the Government are not able to accept the amendment for the following reasons.
Lord Etherton (CB)
Perhaps I should first take the opportunity to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I think the answer is that if somebody goes to a solicitor for advice on a potential course of action, it may be clear that it is unlawful, in which case legal professional principles would require the solicitor not to act for that client in relation to that. But there may be gradations of arguability about whether it is lawful or not; I gave the example of things going up and down, and he would be perfectly entitled to advise on those degrees of legality and prospects of success in litigation. My point was simply that that should not render the solicitor in any way concerned about committing any breach of a regulatory duty. That is the way it would work, and it would be the same for a barrister.
Turning to the Minister’s comments, I am afraid he has not really addressed the point that I made, which is that, in paragraph 2, the Explanatory Notes say that the Bill has three key objectives. That is the Government’s definition of what it is about:
“a. Prevent organised criminals, fraudsters, kleptocrats and terrorists from using companies and other corporate entities to abuse the UK’s open economy. This Bill will reform the powers of the Registrar of Companies and the legal framework for limited partnerships in order to safeguard businesses”.
Then it deals with strengthening
“the UK’s broader response to economic crime”
by seizure of crypto assets and so on. The extension of the definition of economic crime to matters such as I mentioned, for example representations of directors or theft, is way outside that. It is nothing to do with London as the place where people launder money, for example, and I do not accept that there may be some difficulty in distinguishing fraud and theft. A fraud may involve a theft, but fraud is quite clear as to what it is.
Amendment 81 is not an attempt to narrow the definition, except in relation to what I understand to be the essential elements: fraud, false accounting, money laundering and offences under any binding sanctions regime. If it is something more than that, then that ought to appear in the Explanatory Notes or be clearly stated by the Minister at the Dispatch Box. It should be made clear. You could combine a statement such as that—the broad objectives—together with various bits of legislation, but actually the advantage of expressing it in these generic ways is that it would make it far simpler and easier to understand, and would not require changes to the Act when there are legislative changes, with regard to the various offences currently listed in Schedule 9.
Having said that, I have made perfectly clear what the primary objections are to the new regulatory offence, which does not concentrate on the actual personal collusion or facilitation by the solicitor but could cover, for example, information that the solicitor receives in the course of advice from the client about some third party—because it is that wide, I say it would be an abuse of the legal regulation to leave it in that way rather than confine it to a personal involvement.
But I have made those points. I have listened to the Minister and certainly, so far as today is concerned, I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
House of Lords
Personal Statement
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make a personal statement. It is with very many regrets that I must apologise to the House. The Commissioner for Standards has recently concluded that, by failing to register my unpaid role as director of Equal and Free Limited and the staff support that I receive from that organisation, I was in breach of paragraphs 12 and 15 of the Code of Conduct; and that, by failing to declare my directorship of Equal and Free Limited when participating in relevant proceedings, I was also in breach of paragraph 17 of the Code of Conduct.
As soon as I became aware of these oversights, I took steps to rectify them by telephoning the office of the Registrar of Lords’ Interests and ensuring that the register was updated. Nevertheless, I deeply regret having breached the code and offer the House my sincere apology.
Long Covid
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to support those suffering from long Covid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
We are committed to supporting people experiencing long-term effects of Covid-19. We have invested £314 million in long Covid care, establishing 90 specialised services for adults and 14 services for children and young people across England. These direct people with long Covid conditions into care pathways that provide appropriate support, treatment and rehabilitation. Furthermore, we have invested £50 million in research to better understand long Covid and how to treat it.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, with ONS data now showing more than 2 million people affected by long Covid, is it not high time that this condition was properly addressed in the workplace, as asked for by Long Covid Support and the TUC? Will the Government specify long Covid as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, as other conditions have been? Will they recognise long Covid as an occupational disease for all front-line workers? This is surely the least we can do for those who risked their lives to protect ours and those who continue to work in an unsafe environment.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Earl for his question and for raising this subject generally; it is of key importance to all of us. In the area of long Covid, we are still learning. The reality is that there are a lot of situations where, thankfully, long Covid might end after 12, 14 or 16 weeks. For those reasons, it is not appropriate to define it as a long-term disability in legislative terms at this stage. At the same time, clearly, if people are suffering from conditions that mean they are unable to work for a length of time, they are absolutely able to get personal independence payments and the other payments that are due to them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there is real concern about the rising number of inactive people of working age, due mainly to long-term sickness. I accept what he said about the time limits, but to what extent is he concerned that our failure to tackle long Covid appropriately will add to that labour market inactivity?
Lord Markham (Con)
I take issue with the statement of failure to deal with it. We pioneered this space. We set up 90 specialist adult centres and 14 specialist centres for kids. We have invested £314 million and 80% of people are seen within eight weeks of being referred. That shows that we are taking this seriously. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we want to ensure that we get as many people into work as possible. In the case of long Covid, we are definitely doing that.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that evidence shows that the risk of long Covid increases with each subsequent reinfection, and that most adults were last vaccinated in the autumn, which means that their immunity is waning and that they are vulnerable to new infection. For many, this will be their second or even third case of Covid. Given that the living with Covid strategy is to manage Covid like other respiratory illnesses, what consideration have the Government given to adopting a similar vaccination strategy as they do for flu, in that those not eligible for free vaccinations could be offered the option to buy a vaccination? Have the Government made any assessment of the impact that such a strategy would have on the number of reinfections and therefore the rates of people suffering with long Covid?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. I think we all accept that this is a complex area where, naturally, we are being guided by the science. Our vaccination strategy has been focused on the highest-risk groups. On allowing other people to pay over and above, as with flu, I think it is best that I come back in correspondence.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, in the statistics for long Covid, are any particular professions overrepresented among sufferers?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. We do not capture statistics in that way—I had a chance to ask the department quickly a few minutes ago—but I will inquire to see whether we can find out more on that. Obviously, some occupations, such as working in the health service, lend themselves more to it, because you are more likely to catch Covid, which is why how we look after our own staff is of paramount importance. On the wider point, I will come back to my noble friend.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, 2 million people currently reporting symptoms of long Covid is a shocking 3.1% of the population, with over a million people having had it for at least one year. There are some very successful models for assessment and treatment, but some clinics still assume that long Covid is like ME/chronic fatigue and do not investigate for microclots and heart and lung problems. Why is there not a gold standard for assessments and treatment of long Covid in England as there is in a number of other countries, including Scotland?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. My understanding is that the 90 specialist adult centres and 14 specialist children’s centres have care pathways which they are supposed to adhere to. Therefore, I hope that the instances which the noble Baroness brings up are the exception, but I am happy to investigate because I think we all agree that a consistent care pathway is vital in this space.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, despite the provisions that the Minister has outlined, the reality is that just a fraction of the people who have long Covid are seen and supported. What steps are being taken to ensure that GPs recognise long Covid in those who do not self-label as having the condition, and how will the Minister respond to the data that shows inadequate access to specialised health services?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I say, the data that I have been working with indicate that 80% are seen within eight weeks, which I think most noble Lords would agree is a pretty good statistic. My understanding is that GPs are fully briefed on referrals and disability types. It is clearly important that people who are suffering in the long term make sure that they get treatment.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, the advice of the DWP and DHSC is that, if those impacted by long Covid are unable to work, they will be able to access financial assistance through schemes such as PIP. However, in practice, as the noble Baroness said, there is a lack of recognition of long Covid among GPs and PIP assessors. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that more long Covid sufferers are identified and able to access financial support?
Lord Markham (Con)
They are absolutely part of the prescribed path. I know from my DWP colleagues that it is part of the training that those people should be supported with personal independence payments. As of January, more than 4,000 people were being treated and receiving payments in this way. It is fundamental that they get access to those payments going forward.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, two things are important in the long-term management of patients with long Covid. The first is epidemiological studies, and I am glad that the Government are backing with £50 million the NIHR to do such studies. The second is finding cures. Interestingly, the molecular studies carried out by Oxford show that there might be mitochondrial dysfunction, which leads to a loss of energy production and therefore fatigue. A drug that has entered its phase 2 trial sounds promising, so we must also support molecular science to find a cure for this condition.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and applaud the research work that has been done. As I said, we have invested £50 million on top of the £118 million for Covid research. Just as we were one of the front-runners in developing the Covid vaccine, with AstraZeneca, it is very much our ambition to be a front-runner in developing cures for long Covid.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
It is this side. Thank you for giving way; I appreciate it. So far, 223,738 people have died from Covid and it has cost this country between £310 billion and £410 billion. Last month, in a Written Question, I asked the Government what they thought were the origins of Covid. The Answer that came back, which was not a reply at all, was that they fully supported the World Health Organization’s study into its origins. But that is an organisation that once speculated that Covid might have come into China on a package of frozen food. The World Health Organization has achieved very little since, and Nature magazine has just revealed that it has “quietly shelved” its second scientific investigation into Covid’s origins. Why do the Government appear so uninterested in the origins of a disease that has cost us so much? Why did it happen, where is it going and how are we going to prevent a second epidemic causing the same sort of chaos that came from Covid?
Lord Markham (Con)
We are interested, and the Covid inquiry is all about finding out the origins and learning the lessons. I, among others, am very keen to hear that.
If I am allowed to, I am happy to take the question that was not allowed in. Okay, I am not—I tried.
Apprenticeship Levy
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the sectoral disbursement of the take-up of the Apprenticeship Levy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, employers are at the heart of our apprenticeship system. They have developed more than 660 standards across a range of occupations, and they choose which apprenticeships they offer and when. The health and care, business administration and law sector subject areas were each around a quarter of starts last year, benefiting employers operating across all sectors of the economy. We have also seen recent growth in the digital and construction sector subject areas. The apprenticeship levy will enable us to increase funding to £2.7 billion by 2024 to support employers in all sectors to invest in apprenticeships.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. As one of the few in your Lordships’ House who attained not a degree but a technical qualification—I am immensely proud of my HND—I understand the need for technical education. The apprenticeship levy is seen by many employers, especially those unable to recoup their contributions, as a training tax. This is due to the current scheme’s inflexible, rigid and bureaucratic nature. Does the Minister recognise the need to redress these problems? If so, are there any plans to extend the sectoral remit, the timescale of study and draw-down and the level of application, and thus help improve the apprenticeship schemes?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think the noble Lord would agree that this country needs to invest more in the skills of the workforce, both those entering the workforce and those currently in it. The last thing we need to do is cut back on the amount of funding going into apprenticeships. I remind the House that of the £2.5 billion last year, there was an £11 million underspend, so it was fully disbursed. We do offer employers flexibility; we are spending £550 million on skills boot camps for the kind of short courses to which the noble Lord alludes, as well as working in particular with the creative industries to offer flexible apprenticeships.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the results of initiatives to increase and broaden the take-up of apprenticeships, such as flexible apprenticeships, making it easier for small businesses to host apprentices, and levy transfer schemes, enabling larger employers to transfer unused levy to businesses in their supply chains? Given the seemingly limited impact of these schemes to date, what plans does the Minister have to increase the flexibility of the levy so that more businesses in more sectors, and especially SMEs, are able to make use of it?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not completely accept the suggestion that the noble Lord makes; 41% of all apprenticeship starts were in SMEs in 2020-21, up from 38% in 2019-20. We have a lot of initiatives. For example, we have lifted the cap on the number of apprentices a small business can take on. In the area of the creative industries, which I alluded to, we are expecting 1,500 apprenticeship starts through the flexible apprenticeship scheme.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister’s department for always giving fulsome Written Answers. From Written Questions we can see that the number of young people not in education or training is largely static, although this year it is estimated to be 1,857,000. The worrying trend, however, is that the number of 19 year-olds is going down year on year and is at 22.4%. The Minister talked about skills, and the other worrying trend is that the number of those people doing intermediate apprenticeships is at its lowest level ever at 22.4%, while higher apprenticeships and advanced apprenticeships are at their highest level. This goes against the whole basis of why the apprenticeship scheme was set up by the coalition Government.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The apprenticeship scheme has two important objectives. One, as the noble Lord touched on, is to give young people a choice of opportunities as they enter their career—training, work experience and so forth. The other is to give our employers the skills they need in their workforce. The scheme is currently balancing those two things.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, as a former chairman of the Engineering Training Authority I am clearly very conscious of the work in that particular sector. What is the position today? Is a sufficient number of young people coming forward for apprenticeships in the engineering sector?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Engineering and manufacturing technologies account for about 14% of all the apprenticeship starts. Last year that was about 49,000 apprentices.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the creative industries in a number of her earlier answers. I believe she said most recently that 1,500 starts are expected within those industries. Can she tell the House—and if not, can she please write on the matter—how many of those 1,500 are being undertaken in small and medium-sized enterprises within the creative industries?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Given that the creative industries are full of small and medium-sized enterprises, I assume that it is the vast majority. If it is different from that, I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, in recent years a practice has sprung up in British industry of not training staff but recruiting them directly, already trained, from overseas, often from countries that could benefit from having their own trained staff stay at home. This leads to the shortages of skilled staff that we have in the economy and surges in immigration through work visas, which we find difficult to accommodate with housing and adequate social services. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not waver in their application of the apprenticeship levy, which is making an important difference in stimulating firms to start training their own staff in the way that they used to? Will the Government also take steps to stop the abuse of the levy when it sometimes gets employed for management training for long-serving senior managers, who would be trained by the company anyway in the ordinary course of events?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am happy to reassure my noble friend that we have no plans to do away with the levy. Indeed, as I said, based on the OBR forecast we expect it to increase to £2.7 billion in 2024-25. The levy is part of a wider strategy to offer more flexible opportunities, such as modular learning and the lifelong loan entitlement, to potential employees and address the skills gaps of employers more effectively.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, the chief executive of the CIPD has said that the apprenticeship levy
“has failed … Without reform it will act as a handbrake on employer investment in skills”.
Given reports that more than £2 billion of the levy money has been clawed back by the Treasury rather than being spent on apprenticeships, is it still genuinely the Government’s view that the levy as it stands is fit for purpose?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It is the Government’s view. Again, if we look at the trend in the use of the levy, we have seen an increase in adoption and use of the levy by employers, both levy-paying employers and much smaller enterprises. We are committed to offering all sorts of flexible and shorter courses, and to funding those to meet key skills gaps. We think this is a critical part of our strategy.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I was pleased to see that, among other measures, the Apprenticeship Diversity Champions Network has been set up to provide practical advice on how to attract more women into STEM roles in industries that have historically been dominated by men. The first quarter of 2022-23 saw 13% more women start STEM apprenticeships. Can the Minister say what other measures will be taken to build on this progress?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously there are a number of different initiatives, both within schools, particularly in relation to girls and young women to increase their awareness of and aspiration to become involved in the STEM sector, and, in turn, working with employers and holding them to account in terms of how and where they recruit.
Nuptial Agreements
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce the draft Nuptial Agreements Bill, as drafted and recommended by the Law Commission in its Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements report, published on 26 February 2014 (HC 1089).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, it was announced on 4 April that the Law Commission will be conducting a review of the law on financial provision on divorce. While this review is taking place, the Government do not consider it the right time to legislate in respect of nuptial agreements. The Government favour a holistic rather than a piecemeal approach to any future legislative reform in this area.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed but not surprised by that response. I declare my interest as practising in this field. It is well known that this is stand-alone legislation which came about as a consequence of a House of Lords decision in Radmacher in 2010. During the coalition, the Law Commission set up a paper and, as a consequence, in 2014 there was a response which is oven-ready for putting on the statute book.
Instead of that happening, with almost indecent haste and despite the warnings, the no-fault divorce law has proceeded through these Houses. We have more people with pre-nuptial agreements and more people getting divorced, and there is no direction for the judges as to how the law has changed as a consequence of these agreements being enforceable. Please can the Minister explain why it is acceptable to delay this legislation, which would be quite simple to push through, in circumstances where the courts are over-burdened, the judges have no direction and lawyers practising in this field have lucrative groundhog days ahead?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Shackleton for her question. The answer is twofold: first, the Government consider that the present root-and-branch review of financial provision is better than looking at a particular outcrop within that landscape. Secondly, any Government have to prioritise. In recent years, priority has been given, for example, to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2022, which introduced no-fault divorce; and the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, which made it illegal to marry under the age of 18. These are all fundamental reforms and I make no apology for prioritising those measures.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, may I start by wishing the Minister a happy birthday—and ask him whether there is any prospect of this Bill being enacted in his lifetime and mine? He has mentioned all these other statutes, which are not really relevant. The failure to enact this Bill undermines the no-fault divorce law, because the failure to have binding nuptial agreements leaves couples in as antagonistic and expensive a situation as before. Will he please get on with it?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those birthday wishes. It is often said that life begins at 40 but experience shows that it is very much later than that. I very much hope that we will be able to legislate in her lifetime, if not my own. Prenups are undoubtedly an important issue. Since 2010, the law has been that there is a presumption in favour of enforcing prenuptial agreements unless it is unfair to do so. Secondly, although this is an important question, it affects a relatively small and privileged cohort, and it must take its place in the queue on that basis.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
The Minister refers to a small cohort. Has he any idea how many nuptial agreements exist as a percentage of those people who get married these days?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I do not have that information. I will see if I can find it and if I can, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, this is a sensible move. It would make sense to introduce this legislation now, provided that it does not affect the overall review that is taking place. Why does the Minister not just act on this one piece of legislation now?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, it is hard for me to add to my previous answer. The Government feel that we must look at the whole landscape and get the law on financial provision sorted out, and that gives us the context in which we can decide what to do about prenups.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, as others have said today, such a Bill can stand completely independently of the planned reform. The whole point is that those who embark on this do not want to litigate, in the unhappy event of a divorce, and do not want to expose themselves to all the uncertainties of the court’s discretion. Why on earth can the Government not do something about it now?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, it is not a straight- forward issue; even the Law Commission’s report of 2014 made it clear that there had to be quite a number of exceptions in relation to financial need before one could legislate. As I say, the Government prefer to proceed on a broad front rather than deal with this issue specifically.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I have practised as a divorce lawyer in South Africa, where the prenuptial agreement is respected, and it should not be seen purely as a protection for high net worth individuals. Why is there so much resistance to respecting and introducing a prenuptial agreement?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government have confidence in the courts to apply the general law, which is that prenups should in general be respected unless it is unfair to do so. That is not far off what the Law Commission recommended in 2014.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, most couples going through a divorce do not have their financial arrangements made by judge. Some reach settlement with the assistance of lawyers, others through mediation and arbitration. Of course, many do not have access to lawyers because of the withdrawal of legal aid. When the holistic review looks at financial provision for divorce, will that include the increase in legal aid for divorcing couples?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I think the answer to that question, for which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is that this is not directly within the Law Commission’s terms of reference, but it is well within the review of civil legal aid upon which the Government are currently embarking.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
When are the Government going to get on with financial relief and produce some legislation?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
When the Law Commission’s report is available.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, it was very reassuring to hear the Minister say that we need to consider legislation very carefully before it is introduced and see how it fits in with other Acts and so on. Can he assure us that similar procedures have been applied to some of the legislation currently before the House with which we are struggling?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Government always do their best to ensure that the legislation is comprehensive and consistent.
Housing: Overcrowding
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the National Housing Federation’s report, Overcrowding in England, published on 19 April; and, in particular, its finding that one in six children lives in ‘overcrowded conditions’.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
The Government are committed to reducing overcrowding by increasing the supply of affordable housing and enabling councils and other social landlords to make better use of their existing homes. We are also consulting on changes to the NPPF to make clear that local authorities should give greater importance to social housing in planning decisions. The current legislative framework maintains that statutory reasonable preference requirements must ensure that social housing is prioritised for those who need it most, including for those in overcrowded housing.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply but does she accept that the National Housing Federation’s research has exposed the dire levels of the housing crisis in England? Some 2 million children are forced to live in cramped and overcrowded conditions, with no personal space—that is one in six children. Households from ethnic-minority backgrounds are three times more likely to be affected by overcrowding. There is a general recognition that the leading cause of overcrowding in England is the chronic shortage of social housing, as the Minister has I think acknowledged. Funding for social rent remains at an all-time low. The lack of any funding for regeneration has made investment in existing homes nigh impossible. Does the Minister agree with the National Housing Federation that a long-term, national plan is required to drive up the number of appropriate, affordable homes across England for families right round the country?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Obviously the Government are concerned about overcrowded houses around the country and the report that came out, but I can tell noble Lords what the Government are doing. Now, as we sit here, we have an affordable housing fund of £11.5 billion, and we are putting more priority on using that fund for houses for social rent. The £500 million local authority housing fund is also going out now, to build houses in the next two years where local authorities are under extreme pressure for social housing. As I say, for the future, we are changing the NPPF to ensure that social housing takes a higher priority when local planning authorities are looking at their local plans and prioritising houses for social rent.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is it not a fact that, over the last five years, there has been a steady decline in social housing? Against that background, will my noble friend look again at this issue and put some drive behind new towns, new cities and new garden cities? Those organisations have relieved a great deal of overcrowding in our cities throughout the United Kingdom and have provided decent housing for families to live in, for the future.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
This is a subject that my noble friend brings up quite often. As I have said, we will continue to look at every solution to the problem of more houses in this country.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, for me, the key issue is the lack of suitable homes for people to upsize to at a rent that they can afford. Will the Government please reconsider unfreezing the local housing allowance to help some families, especially those in the private sector, to upsize and get out of those conditions?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We have no plans to do so at the moment but I will keep the noble Baroness and the House aware of any that we might have in the future.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the National Housing Federation for its excellent report highlighting this crucial issue, and to my noble friend Lady Warwick for her tireless work on housing. The level of overcrowding highlighted by the NHF is one of the strongest indicators of the woeful state of housing in this country and the shameful record of this Government, with only 6,000 social homes built last year and 2 million families on waiting lists. The recent decision to abandon housing targets has exacerbated the housing crisis and will worsen the issue of overcrowded properties. Given that planning applications in England are now at a record low, will the Minister bring forward amendments to the levelling-up Bill to put the targets back into law?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. We have had this debate on a number of occasions throughout the LUR Bill, and I am sure we will have this discussion again. We are clear that we are looking at the NPPF into the future, but it is up to local planning authorities to decide on the types of housing that they are going to put into their local plans and how many. We feel that, with the new changes in the LURB, local plans will be easier to produce and there will be more of them, delivering more housing for this country.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the research to which my noble friend referred showed that the families most likely to suffer from overcrowding are families already in the social housing sector, but they cannot move because there are no larger homes to move to and they cannot afford to rent. In the medium term, should the social housing sector not be building more, larger houses? In the short term, should housing associations and local authorities consider leasing larger homes from the private sector in order to mitigate the problems to which my noble friend referred?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. If you have anything to do with local housing, you will realise that there seem to be many more one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties than there are family homes. We recognise the challenge faced by the sector, and that is why we encourage local authorities to continue to consider innovative ways in which they can best use their stock. For example, supporting underoccupiers to transfer to other, smaller properties is one way that they can then relet family homes. Landlords are focused on providing high-quality services to all their tenants. Introducing a new requirement for local authorities to lease larger homes in the open market may also be considered a new burden, for which funding would be unlikely to be provided.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, as has already been mentioned, the report firmly states that ethnic-minority households are three times more likely to be overcrowded than white households. Have the Government taken note of that? What do they intend to do to specifically rectify the problem for ethnic minorities?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, interestingly, in December 2022, we published our report Overcrowding in South Asian Households, to provide a deeper understanding of the issues faced by those from South Asian backgrounds. The study puts Bangladeshi and Pakistani households at the centre of a piece of research, including their perceptions of their living situations and cultural drivers. This is the first time that overcrowding has been studied in that way, and our findings are used to develop culturally sensitive policies on overcrowding and housing more generally. This came from an English Housing Survey that indicated that British Bangladeshis and Pakistanis were particularly affected by overcrowding.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I know a number of families in London who are affected by significant overcrowding, and obviously one of the options for them is to leave London. Will my noble friend the Minister please talk to her colleague at the Department for Education, as there are reports that the school-places situation in London is going to be affected by the fact that families are now moving out of the capital? It might cost more money to build school places elsewhere in the country than to adopt the solution suggested by my noble friend Lord Young, which is to rent from the private sector three-bedroom and four-bedroom properties here in London.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am aware of some of those issues, some of which came from Covid and people moving out at that time. I do not know the answer to the questions that my noble friend raises on the education side, but I will ask my colleagues in the Department for Education and will write to her.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the myriad issues that arise on housing provision are very serious indeed. The solution might be expensive but it is not complicated —virtually every questioner today has pointed to the lack of supply of social housing. The stats are very simple: the availability of social housing in the last two or three decades has pretty well halved, while much more expensive, private accommodation has pretty well doubled. Can the Government just focus on this one, simply stated issue, as we desperately need a huge expansion of the level of provision of social housing?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That is why, as I have already said, we are putting £11.5 billion into the affordable housing fund, more of which is going to be prioritised on social houses for rent. We are also looking at changing the National Planning Policy Framework in order to increase the importance of social housing. We are encouraging local authorities, in drawing up their local plans, to consider not just affordable housing but social housing for rent. We have just put £500 million into the local authority housing fund to help in the short term.
UK Undersea Infrastructure: Hostile Activity
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risk to the UK’s undersea cables, interconnectors and pipelines from hostile activity.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government take the security and resilience of undersea infrastructure, including cables, interconnectors and pipelines, very seriously. These are critical to our national infrastructure and we monitor the full range of threats and risks, including supply chains and repair arrangements. As the House would expect, the details of any specific assessment of risk from hostile states would be held at high classification for national security reasons.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the actions and statements of President Putin would seem to indicate that he already considers he is at war with this country and the West, if you just look at the raft of things he has done. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union, when it existed, was very interested in what was going on under the sea—I was very involved in countering that—and Russia today is probably even more interested in it. Just to give an idea of the costs, if those cables stopped working, £7.4 trillion-worth of financial activity each day would be cut, 25% of our electricity would go, and so on. We put in place the National Maritime Information Centre in about 2010 and we needed the Joint Maritime Security Centre alongside it, because we said firmly that we had to take threats to our territorial seas and exclusive economic zone very seriously. They are now in place, which is good, but they need to be reinforced—and the departments involved need to fully man them—because otherwise we will not be able to counter what is a very real and present threat, which could cause major damage to our nation.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I in no way disagree with the noble Lord’s final conclusion. It is recognised across government, which is why a number of government departments have a role to play in protecting that critical national infrastructure. We certainly regard these installations as essential to our national infrastructure and monitor a variety of risks that they face. The noble Lord will understand that these subsea cables are predominantly owned and operated privately, but key departments work closely with their owners. Supporting that is the national risk register, the National Protective Security Authority and the National Cyber Security Centre. There is a comprehensive framework to support the private owners and operators of these cables, but the MoD has and discharges a critical role in monitoring threat.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, if, as is reported in the newspapers today, the plan is now to turn the whole north Atlantic into one gigantic system of wind farms on an international basis, the effect would be to turn the whole seabed of the north Atlantic into a cat’s cradle of vital undersea electric power lines. Are we prepared, in moving forward to this fossil-free electric world that we are heading for, to safeguard those lines, since they could, if interfered with, put at risk not merely 25% of our electricity supply but our entire electricity supply when the wind is blowing?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I think we all agree that the overall objective of increasing our usage of renewable energy is laudable and to be commended, but my noble friend is correct that the installation of infrastructure brings with it an obvious degree of risk. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord West, across government there are a range of departments with responsibilities in this field. As far as the MoD is concerned, we actively monitor threat. When it comes to looking at, for example, Russian activity in either the Baltic Sea or the North Sea, noble Lords will understand that we regularly assess by our maritime presence what is happening. The Russians know that we know they know what we are doing.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, protecting against threats is clearly important but there is no such thing as perfect defence. With what degree of urgency are the Government addressing our resilience in this area of our critical national infrastructure?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord will be aware that we have operational assets which we can deploy. For example, in the wake of Nord Stream we deployed HMS “Somerset” to monitor what was happening. We also have our MROS programme; one of those ships has been bought and is currently being readied for operational activity, and the other is to be built.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My, Lords, other noble Lords have asked about the national response to this international, shared problem, but it is very clear that what has to be done is a common effort by navies and air forces around the North Sea in particular. I am aware that there is very close co-operation between the Royal Navy and other navies around the North Sea, and with the Royal Air Force. I am also aware that Conservative Ministers prefer not to talk about it. Could the Minister try to encourage the Ministry of Defence to celebrate more the effectiveness of the co-operation we have with the armed forces of other countries in facing shared threats such as this?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am not normally accused of taciturnity, so I shall try to encourage the noble Lord. He is aware, certainly, that in relation to recent activity for Ukraine the MoD has been outward facing. We have released intelligence that we have been prepared to comment on. The noble Lord is quite correct that we continue to invest in strong working relationships, partnerships and alliances, such as NATO. We co-operate on the development of new capabilities, such as the MROS vessel I just spoke about. We act in concert with our international allies. That is a very important part of the collective endeavour to try to manage risk.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, we are often quick to criticise defence procurement, but I commend the Government on the procurement of the new MROS vessel. It was announced in October by the Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace, and delivered to the Royal Navy at the end of January—in just three months. Is this not a lesson for us? All too often we try to procure the exquisite at an exquisite price, while here we have acquired the very good at a very reasonable price. What are the lessons for the future; for example, for littoral strike vessels for the Royal Marines, which can be, at the most basic, in effect, converted container ships?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My noble friend will understand that, coming from Scotland where ferries have become a very sensitive issue, I would applaud any approach which produced vessels where and when they were needed. My noble friend makes an important point. The commissioning and buying of this vessel—as I say, it is being refurbished in readiness for operational activity—is an important experience for the MoD. There are lessons we can learn. There may be merit, as my noble friend rightly says, in not looking so closely at the exquisite ultimate product but looking to what we need now and taking steps to get it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, a couple of years ago the Government witnessed the cutting of a power cable to the Isles of Scilly, putting the mains off for about three months. I asked the Minister at the time whether they were going to claim compensation. They said, “No, it’s a private sector company so it can do what it likes”. I hope that things have changed.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
That area of responsibility, the noble Lord will understand, is slightly outwith my ministerial bailiwick, but I am sure his remarks have been heard by the appropriate department.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that yesterday’s Ostend meeting showed how much overlap there is between EU and NATO responsibilities, particularly in the North Sea? Does she not feel that the NATO strategy adopted last summer—that non-EU members of NATO and EU members should be working together—applies precisely to this field? If it does apply to this field, what are the Government doing to take that forward in advance of the NATO summit in Vilnius?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
We have to be clear that NATO exists for a specific purpose. It is a very effective defensive alliance. It is a militarily supported alliance. What I can say to the noble Lord is that I entirely agree with the kernel of his point: the more co-operation we have, the better. That will be more likely to secure a coherent approach to these threats. I am pleased to say that certainly the MoD enjoys extremely good relationships with other European countries, even those not in NATO.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I was interested to hear the Minister commenting on our engagement with our European allies. However, with reports recently that submarine cables connecting the Taiwanese mainland with the island of Matsu have been cut by Chinese boats, this is an international problem. What consultations are we having with allies around the world; in particular, so that we can try to develop back-up systems when countries are put under threat by this sort of action?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
There are two elements to the right reverend Prelate’s question. The first is about the operational resilience of the installations, which is a matter for the owners and operators of the systems. On the second and important point about the vulnerability of such systems to malign attack, we are certainly committed to prepare for, deter and defend against the coercive use of energy and other hybrid tactics by state and non-state actors. The UK was explicit about this at the United Nations Security Council on 30 September last year, where we made it clear, in relation to NATO, that any deliberate attack against allies’ critical national infrastructure would be met with a united and determined response.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise that this is a credible threat, and I congratulate the Ministry of Defence on having a ship with the capability to help, since it has already been built—well done. I understand that the second ship is in the concept stage. Is that concept not defined by that of the first ship, or are the Government contemplating a more offensive capability for the future?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am not sure that I have the technical detail to respond to the noble Lord, but I will undertake to inquire. If I can disclose further information to him, I shall respond in future.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in the absence of a full-scale parliamentary debate on the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Select Committee report on defence priorities and procurement, will the Minister at least review the evidence that the Global Marine Group gave to the inquiry, which identified what it said was an “existential threat” to the United Kingdom because of potential attacks on our infrastructure? It referred specifically to Russian submarines “aggressively operating” in the Atlantic. Therefore, can she answer my noble and gallant friend’s question about what we are doing to ensure that we have the necessary resilience to resist those attacks?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
To respond to the noble Lord, I have to return to the final part of my response to the noble Lord, Lord West: although I have information, I am unable to disclose it—it is held with high classification for national security reasons. As I indicated, the MoD operates a very effective surveillance programme: we have aerial surveillance over the North Sea and the high north and we have submarine activity, which shall be assisted by the MROS addition to its fleet.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, do the latest developments not show that we need to have diversity of supply? Does that not mean that the Government must look again at the current embargo on onshore wind farms and at developing nuclear power?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
A critical element of this debate is resilience, which is partly a matter for government in consultation with industry and certainly a matter for individual private infrastructure operators. As my noble friend will be aware, a raft of government departments has responsibility for this: the Cabinet Office, the FCDO, DSIT, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero —for which I shall not try to use an acronym—and the MoD. While there is a holistic framework of government activity, my noble friend is correct that resilience is the key to good protection.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
How significant do the Government consider the reports of the recent accelerated activity around our shores of Russian vessels, particularly those purporting to be either research or fishing vessels, but which are near oil installations?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
We view that activity with great gravity. As I said earlier, we are aware of that activity and we constantly monitor it, but I am unable to disclose further information.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
What specific co-operation is happening with the Republic of Ireland, which is not a NATO member? There is speculation that the Taoiseach was asked today about concerns that Russian naval exercises off the south-west coast of Ireland are being used as a pretext for the Russians to investigate underground cabling in the Atlantic.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
That would be a matter for the Irish Government to assess and to determine their response to. This gets into an area of policy wider than that covered by the MoD; it would be a matter for discussion between the FCDO and its Irish counterparts.
Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill
Tuesday 25th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 View all Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 September 2022 - (7 Sep 2022)
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down for this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt for the Minister, the Question is in two parts, about first the ministerial register of interests, and secondly the Ministerial Code, and my question is specifically about the Ministerial Code. She will know that finally the Prime Minister has appointed an ethics adviser. Officially the adviser’s title is “the independent adviser on ministerial interests”, but I ask whether she considers the job title somewhat misleading. Only the Prime Minister can decide to initiate an investigation and only the Prime Minister has a veto as the sole arbiter of whether the code has been broken. Either the adviser has the independence that the job title implies, or at minimum should be able to investigate. In the interests of integrity and clarity, should the job title not be changed to “the Prime Minister’s adviser on ministerial interests”? It is very hard to see where the independence applies. Will the Minister tell the House whether she considers that change to be appropriate?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
I do not think we should make the change that the noble Baroness suggests. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the terms of reference for the role of the independent adviser were strengthened in May 2022 when the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, was in the post. The changes made expanded the powers of the independent adviser, in particular giving the office holder the ability to initiate investigations. Where the independent adviser considers that an alleged breach of the Ministerial Code warrants further investigation and that has not already been referred to him, he may initiate an investigation. Before doing so, he will consult the Prime Minister, who will normally give his consent.
I am very pleased that we now have the independent adviser and, for completeness, I should revert to one or two of the points made in response to this Question when it was asked yesterday in the other place. The list of Ministers’ interests was published by the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests on 19 April. The list is not exhaustive but is designed to be read in conjunction with the register of interests in this House, which we all complete. I am very happy to answer further questions in relation to the list of Ministers’ interests, which has now been published in relation to all 120 Ministers.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, can I therefore ask the Minister a further question in relation to the list of Ministers’ interests? Does she agree that, in the interests of accountability, it needs to be updated regularly on the same monthly basis as the register of Members’ interests rather than a couple of times a year at best, as has recently been the case? More generally, does she accept that the Civil Service provides advice to Ministers with impartiality and integrity, and to argue that this is not the case, as some Ministers and former Ministers have done in recent days, is unfair, untrue and damaging to Civil Service morale?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Lord asks why the register is not updated on a monthly basis in the same way as the register of interests that applies in our House and in the other place. It is important to understand that they are different. The list published by the independent adviser is a list: it is published every six months as the public endpoint of an ongoing process. Ministers’ interests are declared on appointment and on an ongoing basis to Permanent Secretaries, and are reviewed by the independent adviser. Any changes have to be notified in real time but, because of the nature of ministerial office, the number of new interests is normally fairly small at any point in time, so it makes sense to publish a new list every six months. There was a delay because of changes in government, which the noble Lord will be well aware of.
I started life as a civil servant and I have worked as a Minister with many brilliant civil servants, a view I know is shared by my colleagues. I believe in an independent Civil Service, and its fearless and impartial advice is vital to this country.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, is it not true that the so-called independent adviser is still a creature of the Prime Minister? The Committee on Standards in Public Life made a number of recommendations to improve the situation, most of which were not adopted. Will the Government reconsider those recommendations from the committee and adopt them so that this position could be seen to be genuinely independent and not a creature of the Prime Minister?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The Government’s work on reforms to strengthen ethics and integrity in central government is now nearing conclusion and we hope to publish our response soon. There have been a number of reports, including Upholding Standards in Public Life, the recommendations of Sir Nigel Boardman’s report on supply chain finance, and PACAC’s fourth report, so we can look forward to a response.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the belated publication of the latest version of ministerial interests. There is a related document which we are also impatiently awaiting, which is the Cabinet Manual. The Government have promised that they will publish it within the foreseeable future, and I understand that there is already a draft in Whitehall. Can the Minister give us any indication of when that Cabinet Manual draft will be complete and will be published?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Work is in progress and it will be published in due course.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
The Tolley report into the former Deputy Prime Minister spends a lot of time listing the sources he used to define “bullying”, but concludes that his role
“is not to determine as a matter of law what ‘bullying’ means for the purpose of the Ministerial Code”.
Given that the former Deputy Prime Minister disputes that he was a bully, and that other Ministers have supported him, does the Minister think it would be wise for the Prime Minister to amend the Ministerial Code to put his definition of bullying into it, so there is no ambiguity going forward?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Since the noble Lord mentions the former Deputy Prime Minister, I remind the House that he made an important contribution to the country, not least by his work during the pandemic. On a personal note, he supported me and indeed the Bench opposite on justice for retail workers facing harassment. He felt obliged to resign following the Tolley report, and I respect his decision. The noble Lord may have seen the letter to the former Deputy Prime Minister from the Prime Minister. It said,
“it is clear that there have been shortcomings in the historic process that have negatively affected everyone involved. We should learn from this how to better handle such matters in future”.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, the Tolley report, which looked into the matter in great detail, referred to intimidation rather than bullying as the cause of the conduct which led the former Deputy Prime Minister to resign. There is a difference between intimidation and bullying, and that should be recognised.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not think I have a great deal to add to the Prime Minister’s reply, other than to underline the point that has been made about how we learn to better handle such matters in future. The points that noble Lords have made are, of course, relevant to that.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, we have a code of conduct that governs the behaviour of special advisers, the Civil Service Code and the Ministerial Code. In most other environments, those in authority in organisations have the protection of the whistleblowing Act. Has anybody considered—perhaps my noble friend could ask the independent adviser on ethics to consider it —how we are making good the gap that exists, potentially, where there are not those protections for those in office when one might need to blow the whistle?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I obviously come from a business background, where whistleblowing is a very important and helpful constraint on wrongful behaviour. I will certainly reflect on my noble friend’s point about whistleblowing in the work that we do following up on these issues.
Online Safety Bill
Tuesday 25th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 87(Rev)-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (25 Apr 2023)
Baroness Kidron
“(d) an internet service, other than a regulated user-to-user service or search service, that meets the child user condition and enables or promotes harmful activity and content as set out in Schedule (Online harms to children).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean any service that meets the 'child user condition' and enables or promotes harmful activity and content to children, as per a new Schedule, would be in scope of the regulation of the bill.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests as put in the register and declared in full at Second Reading. I will speak to Amendment 2 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, to Amendments 3 and 5 in my name, and briefly to Amendments 19, 22, 298 and 299 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding.
The digital world does not have boundaries in the way that the Bill does. It is an ecosystem of services and products that are interdependent. A user journey is made up of incremental signals, nudges and enticements that mean that, when we use our devices, very often we do not end up where we intended to start. The current scope covers user-to-user, search and commercial porn services, but a blog or website that valorises self-harm and depression or suggests starving yourself to death is still exempt because it has limited functionality. So too are games without a user-to-user function, in spite of the known harm associated with game addiction highlighted recently by Professor Henrietta Bowden-Jones, national expert adviser on gambling harms, and the World Health Organization in 2019 when it designated gaming disorder as a behavioural addiction.
There is also an open question about immersive technologies, whose protocols are still very much in flux. I am concerned that the Government are willing to assert that these environments will meet the bar of user-to-user when those that are still building immersive environments make quite clear that that is not a given. Indeed, later in Committee I will be able to demonstrate that already the very worst harms are happening in environments that are not clearly covered by the Bill.
Another unintended consequence of the current drafting is that the task of working out whether you are on a regulated or unregulated service is left entirely to children. That is not what we had been promised. In December the Secretary of State wrote in a public letter to parents,
“I want to reassure every person reading this letter that the onus for keeping young people safe online will sit squarely on the tech companies’ shoulders”.
It is likely that the Minister will suggest that the limited- functionality services will be caught by the gatekeepers. But, as in the case of immersive technology, it is dangerous to suggest that, just because search and user- to-user are the primary access points in 2023, that will remain the case. We must be more forward thinking and ensure that services likely to be accessed that promote harm are in scope by default.
Amendments 3 and 5 are consequential, so I will not debate them now. I have listened to the Government and come back with a reasonable and implementable amendment that applies only to services that are likely to be accessed by children and that enable harm. I now ask the Government to listen and do likewise.
Amendments 92 and 193 cover the child user condition. The phrase “likely to be accessed”, introduced in this House into what became the Data Protection Act 2018, is one of the most unlikely successful British exports. Both the phrase and its definition, set out by the ICO, have been embedded in regulations in countries the world over—yet the Bill replaces this established language while significantly watering down the definition.
The Bill requires
“a significant number of children”
to use the service, or for the service to be
“likely to attract a significant number of users who are children”.
“Significant” in the Bill is defined relative to the overall UK user base, which means that extremely large platforms could deem a few thousand child users not significant compared with the several million-strong user base. Since only services that cross this threshold need comply with the child safety duties, thousands of children will not benefit from the safety duties that the Minister told us last week were at the heart of the Bill.
Amendment 92 would put the ICO’s existing and much-copied definition into the Bill. It says a service is
“likely to be accessed by children”
if
“the service is designed or intended for use by children … children form a substantive and identifiable user group … the possibility of a child accessing the service is more probable than not, taking into consideration … the nature and content of the service and whether that has particular appeal for children … the way in which the service is accessed and any measures in place to prevent children gaining access … market research, current evidence on user behaviour, the user base of similar or existing services”
that are likely to be accessed.
Having two phrases and definitions is bad for business and even worse for regulators. The ICO has first-mover advantage and a more robust test. It is my contention that parents, media and perhaps even our own colleagues would be very shocked to know that the definition in the Bill has the potential for many thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, of children to be left without the protections that the Bill brings forward. Perhaps the Minister could explain why the Government have not chosen regulatory alignment, which is good practice.
Finally, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 19, 22, 298 and 299. I am certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, will spell out how the app stores of Google and Apple are simply a subset of “search”, in that they are gatekeepers to accessing more than 5 million apps worldwide and the first page of each is indeed a search function. Their inclusion should be obvious, but I will add a specific issue about which I have spoken directly with both companies and about which the 5Rights Foundation, of which I am chair, has written to the ICO.
When we looked at the age ratings of apps across Google Play Store and Apple, four things emerged. First, apps are routinely rated much lower than their terms and conditions: for example, Amazon Shopping says 18 but has an age rating of 4 on Apple. This pattern goes across both platforms, covering social sites, gaming, shopping, et cetera.
Secondly, the same apps and services did not have the same age rating across both services, which, between them, are gatekeepers for more than 95% of the app market. In one extreme case, an app rated four on one of them was rated 16 on the other, with other significant anomalies being extremely frequent.
Thirdly, almost none of the apps considered their data protection duties in coming to a decision on their age rating, which is a problem, since privacy and safety and inextricably linked.
Finally, in the case of Apple, using a device registered to a 15 year-old, we were able to download age-restricted apps including a dozen or more 18-plus dating sites. In fairness, I give a shoutout to Google, which, because of the age-appropriate design code, chose more than a year ago not to show 18-plus content to children in its Play Store. So this is indeed a political and business choice and not a question of technology. Millions of services are accessed via the App Store. Given the Government’s position—that gatekeepers have specific responsibilities in relation to harmful content and activity—surely the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, are necessary.
My preference was for a less complicated Bill based on principles and judged on outcomes. I understand that that ship has sailed, but it is not acceptable for the Government now to use the length and complexity of the Bill as a reason not to accept amendments that would fill loopholes where harm has been proven. It is time to deliver on the promises made to parents and children, and to put the onus for keeping young people safe online squarely on tech companies’ shoulders. I beg to move.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 19, 22, 298 and 299 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Clement-Jones. I will also briefly add at the end of my speech my support for the amendments in the name of my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It has been a huge privilege to be her support act all the way from the beginnings of the age-appropriate design code; it feels comfortable to speak after her.
I want briefly to set out what my amendments would do. Their purpose is to bring app stores into the child protection elements of the Bill. Amendment 19 would require app stores to prepare
“risk assessments equal to user-to-user services due to their role in distributing online content through apps to children and as a primary facilitator of user-to-user”
services reaching children. Amendment 22 would mandate app stores
“to use proportionate and proactive measures, such as age assurance, to prevent children”
coming into contact with
“primary priority content that is harmful to children”.
Amendments 298 and 299 would simply define “app” and “app stores”.
Let us be clear what app stores do. They enable customers to buy apps and user-to-user services. They enable customers to download free apps. They offer up curated content in the app store itself and decide what apps someone would like to see. They enable customers to search for apps for user-to-user content. They provide age ratings; as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, they may be different age ratings in different app stores for the same app. They sometimes block the download of apps based on the age rating and their assessment of someone’s age, but not always, and it is different for different app stores.
Why should they be included in this Bill—if it is not obvious from what I have already said? First, two companies are profiting from selling user-to-user products to children. Two app stores account for some 98%-plus of all downloads of user-to-user services, with no requirements to assess the risk of selling those products to children or to mitigate those risks. We do not allow that in the physical world so we should not allow it in the digital world.
Secondly, parents and teenagers tell us that this measure would help. A number of different studies have been done; I will reference just two. One was by FOSI, the Family Online Safety Institute, which conducted an international research project in which parents consistently said that having age assurance at the app store level would make things simpler and more effective for them; ironically, the FOSI research was conducted with Google.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the two noble Baronesses. I remind the Committee of my background as a board member of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. I also declare an indirect interest, as my oldest son is the founder and studio head of Mediatonic, which is now part of Epic Games and is the maker of “Fall Guys”, which I am sure is familiar to your Lordships.
I speak today in support of Amendments 2 and 92 and the consequent amendments in this group. I also support the various app store amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, but I will not address them directly in these remarks.
I was remarkably encouraged on Wednesday by the Minister’s reply to the debate on the purposes of the Bill, especially by the priority that he and the Government gave to the safety of children as its primary purpose. The Minister underlined this point in three different ways:
“The main purposes of the Bill are: to give the highest levels of protection to children … The Bill will require companies to take stringent measures to tackle illegal content and protect children, with the highest protections in the Bill devoted to protecting children … Children’s safety is prioritised throughout this Bill”.—[Official Report, 19/4/23; col. 724.]
The purpose of Amendments 2 and 92 and consequent amendments is to extend and deepen the provisions in the Bill to protect children against a range of harms. This is necessary for both the present and the future. It is necessary in the present because of the harms to which children are exposed through a broad range of services, many of which are not currently in the Bill’s scope. Amendment 2 expands the scope to include any internet service that meets the child user condition and enables or promotes harmful activity and content as set out in the schedule provided. Why would the Government not take this step, given the aims and purposes of the Bill to give the highest protection to children?
Every day, the diocese of Oxford educates some 60,000 children in our primary and secondary schools. Almost all of them have or will have access to a smartphone, either late in primary, hopefully, or early in secondary school. The smartphone is a wonderful tool to access educational content, entertainment and friendship networks, but it is also a potential gateway for companies, children and individuals to access children’s inner lives, in secret, in the dead of night and without robust regulation. It therefore exposes them to harm. Sometimes that harm is deliberate and sometimes unintentional. This power for harm will only increase in the coming years without these provisions.
The Committee needs to be alert to generational changes in technology. When I was 16 in secondary school in Halifax, I did a computer course in the sixth form. We had to take a long bus ride to the computer building in Huddersfield University. The computer filled several rooms in the basement. The class learned how to program using punch cards. The answers to our questions came back days later, on long screeds of printed paper.
When my own children were teenagers and my oldest was 16, we had one family computer in the main living room of the house. The family was able to monitor usage. Access to the internet was possible, but only through a dial-up modem. The oldest of my grandchildren is now seven and many of his friends have smartphones now. In a few years, he will certainly carry a connected device in his pocket and, potentially, have access to the entire internet 24/7.
I want him and millions of other children to have the same protection online as he enjoys offline. That means recognising that harms come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Some are easy to spot, such as pornography. We know the terrible damage that porn inflicts on young lives. Some are more insidious and gradual: addictive behaviours, the promotion of gambling, the erosion of confidence, grooming, self-harm and suicidal thoughts, encouraging eating disorders, fostering addiction through algorithms and eroding the barriers of the person.
The NSPCC describes many harms to children on social networks that we are all now familiar with, but it also highlights online chat, comments on livestream sites, voice chat in games and private messaging among the vectors for harm. According to Ofcom, nine in 10 children in the UK play video games, and they do so on devices ranging from computers to mobile phones to consoles. Internet Matters says that most children’s first interaction with someone they do not know online is now more likely to be in a video game such as “Roblox” than anywhere else. It also found that parents underestimate the frequency with which their children are contacted by strangers online.
The Gambling Commission has estimated that 25,000 children in the UK aged between 11 and 16 are problem gamblers, with many of them introduced to betting via computer games and social media. Families have been left with bills, sometimes of more than £3,000, after uncontrolled spending on loot boxes.
Online companies, we know, design their products with psychological principles of engagement firmly in view, and then refine their products by scraping data from users. According to the Information Commissioner, more than 1 million underage children could have been exposed to underage content on TikTok alone, with the platform collecting and using their personal data.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has said, we already have robust and tested definitions of scope in the ICO’s age-appropriate design code—definitions increasingly taken up in other jurisdictions. To give the highest protection to children, we need to build on these secure definitions in this Bill and find the courage to extend robust protection across the internet now.
We also need to future-proof this Bill. These key amendments would ensure that any development, any new kind of service not yet imagined which meets the child user condition and enables or promotes harmful activity and content, would be in scope. This would give Ofcom the power to develop new guidance and accountabilities for the applications that are certain to come in the coming years.
We have an opportunity and a responsibility, as the Minister has said, to build the highest protection into this Bill. I support the key amendments standing in my name.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, first, I beg the indulgence of the Committee to speak briefly at this juncture. I know that no one from the Lib Dem or Labour Benches has spoken yet, but I need to dash over to the Moses Room to speak to some amendments I am moving on the Bill being considered there. Secondly, I also ask the Committee that, if I do not get back in time for the wind-ups, I be forgiven on this occasion.
I simply wanted to say something briefly in support of Amendments 19, 22, 298 and 299, to which I have added my name. My noble friend Lady Harding has already spoken to them comprehensively, so there little I want to add; I just want to emphasise a couple of points. But first, if I may, I will pick up on something the right reverend Prelate said. I think I am right in saying that the most recent Ofcom research shows that 57% of 7 year-olds such as his grandchild have their own phone, and by the time children reach the age of 12 they pretty much all have their own phone. One can only imagine that the age at which children possess their own device is going to get lower.
Turning to app stores, with which these amendments are concerned, currently it is the responsibility of parents and developers to make sure that children are prevented from accessing inappropriate content. My noble friend’s amendments do not dilute in any way the responsibility that should be held by those two very important constituent groups. All we are seeking to do is ensure that app stores, which are currently completely unregulated, take their share of responsibility for making sure that those seeking to download and then use such apps are in the age group the apps are designed for.
As has already been very powerfully explained by my noble friend and by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, different age ratings are being given by the two different app stores right now. It is important for us to understand, in the context of the digital markets and competition Bill, which is being introduced to Parliament today—I cannot tell noble Lords how long we have waited for that legislation and how important it is, not least because it will open up competition, particularly in app stores—that the more competition there will be across app stores and the doorways through which children can go to purchase or download apps, the more important it is that there is consistency and some regulation. That is why I support my noble friend and was very happy to add my name to her amendments.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, it falls to me to inject some grit into what has so far been a very harmonious debate, as I will raise some concerns about Amendments 2 and 22.
I again declare my interest: I spent 10 years working for Facebook, doing the kind of work that we will regulate in this Bill. At this point noble Lords are probably thinking, “So it’s his fault”. I want to stress that, if I raise concerns about the way the regulation is going, it is not that I hold those views because I used to work for the industry; rather, I felt comfortable working in the industry because I always had those views, back to 2003 when we set up Ofcom. I checked the record, and I said things then that are remarkably consistent with how I feel today about how we need to strike the balance between the power of the state and the power of the citizen to use the internet.
I also should declare an interest in respect of Amendment 2, in that I run a blog called regulate.tech. I am not sure how many children are queueing up to read my thoughts about regulation of the tech industry, but they would be welcome to do so. The blog’s strap- line is:
“How to regulate the internet without breaking it”.
It is very much in that spirit that I raise concerns about these two amendments.
I certainly understand the challenges for content that is outside of the user-to-user or search spaces. I understand entirely why the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, feels that something needs to be done about that content. However, I am not sure that this Bill is the right vehicle to address that kind of content. There are principled and practical reasons why it might be a mistake to extend the remit here.
The principle is that the Bill’s fundamental purpose is to restrict access to speech by people in the United Kingdom. That is what legislation such as this does: it restricts speech. We have a framework in the Human Rights Act, which tells us that when we restrict speech we have to pass a rigorous test to show that those restrictions are necessary and proportionate to the objective we are trying to achieve. Clearly, when dealing with children, we weight very heavily in that test whether something is necessary and proportionate in favour of the interest of the welfare of the children, but we cannot do away with the test altogether.
It is clear that the Government have applied that test over the years that they have been preparing this Bill and determined that there is a rationale for intervention in the context of user-to-user services and search services. At the same time, we see in the Bill that the Government’s decision is that intervention is not justified in all sorts of other contexts. Email and SMS are excluded. First-party publisher content is excluded, so none of the media houses will be included. We have a Bill that is very tightly and specifically framed around dealing with intermediaries, whether that is user-to-user intermediaries who intermediate in user-generated content, or search as an intermediary, which scoops up content from across the internet and presents it to you.
This Bill is about regulating the regulators; it is not about regulating first-party speakers. A whole world of issues will come into play if we move into that space. It does not mean that it is not important, just that it is different. There is a common saying that people are now bandying around, which is that freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. To apply a twist to that, restrictions on reach are not the same as restrictions on speech. When we talk about restricting intermediaries, we are talking about restricting reach. If I have something I want to say and Facebook or Twitter will not let me say it, that is a problem and I will get upset, but it is not the same as being told that I cannot say it anywhere on the internet.
My concern about Amendment 2 is that it could lead us into a space where we are restricting speech across the internet. If we are going to do that—there may be a rationale for doing it—we will need to go back and look at our necessity and proportionality test. It may play out differently in that context from user-to-user or intermediary-based services.
From a practical point of view, we have a Bill that, we are told, will give Ofcom the responsibility of regulating 25,000 more or less different entities. They will all be asked to pay money to Ofcom and will all be given a bunch of guidance and duties that they have to fulfil. Again, those duties, as set out in painful length in the Bill, are very specifically about the kind of things that an intermediary should do to its users. If we were to be regulating blogs or people’s first-party speech, or publishers, or the Daily Telegraph, or whoever else, I think we would come up with a very different set of duties from the duties laid out in the Bill. I worry that, however well-motivated, Amendment 2 leads us into a space for which this Bill is not prepared.
I have a lot of sympathy with the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, around the app stores. They are absolutely more like intermediaries, or search, but again the tools in the Bill are not necessarily dedicated to how one would deal with app stores. I was interested in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on what will be happening to our competition authorities; a lot will be happening in that space. On app stores, I worry about what is in Amendment 22: we do not want app stores to think that it is their job to police the content of third-party services. That is Ofcom’s job. We do not want the app stores to get in the middle, not least because of these commercial considerations. We do not want Apple, for instance, thinking that, to comply with UK legislation, it might determine that WhatsApp is unsafe while iMessage is safe. We do not want Google, which operates Play Store, to think that it would have a legal rationale for determining that TikTok is unsafe while YouTube is safe. Again, I know that this is not the noble Baroness’s intention or aim, but clearly there is a risk that we open that up.
There is something to be done about app stores but I do not think that we can roll over the powers in the Bill. When we talk about intermediaries such as user-to-user services and search, we absolutely want them to block bad content. The whole thrust of the Bill is about forcing them to restrict bad content. When it comes to app stores, the noble Baroness set out some of her concerns, but I think we want something quite different. I hesitate to say this, as I know that my noble friend is supportive of it, but I think that it is important as we debate these issues that we hear some of those concerns.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
Could it not be argued that the noble Lord is making a case for regulation of app stores? Let us take the example of Apple’s dispute with “Fortnite”, where Apple is deciding how it wants to police things. Perhaps if this became a more regulated space Ofcom could help make sure that there was freedom of access to some of those different products, regardless of the commercial interests of the people who own the app stores.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
The noble Lord makes a good point. I certainly think we are heading into a world where there will be more regulation of app stores. Google and Apple are commercial competitors with some of the people who are present in their stores. A lot of the people in their stores are in dispute with them over things such as the fees that they have to pay. It is precisely for that reason that I do not think we should be throwing online safety into the mix.
There is a role for regulating app stores, which primarily focuses on these commercial considerations and their position in the market. There may be something to be done around age-rating; the noble Baroness made a very good point about how age-rating works in app stores. However, if we look at the range of responsibilities that we are describing in this Bill and the tools that we are giving to intermediaries, we see that they are the wrong, or inappropriate, set of tools.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
Would the noble Lord acknowledge that app stores are already undertaking these age-rating and blocking decisions? Google has unilaterally decided that, if it assesses that you are under 18, it will not serve up over-18 apps. My concern is that this is already happening but it is happening indiscriminately. How would the noble Lord address that?
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point; they are making efforts. There is a role for app stores to play but I hope she would accept that it is qualitatively different from that played by a search engine or a user-to-user service. If we were to decide, in both instances, that we want app stores to have a greater role in online safety and a framework that allows us to look at blogs and other forms of content, we should go ahead and do that. All I am arguing is that we have a Bill that is carefully constructed around two particular concepts, a user-to-user service and a search engine, and I am not sure it will stretch that far.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I want to reassure the noble Lord: I have his blog in front of me and he was quite right—there were not a lot of children on that site. It is a very good blog, which I read frequently.
I want to make two points. First, age-rating and age-gating are two different things, and I think the noble Lord has conflated them. There is a lot of age- rating going on, and it is false information. We need good information, and we have not managed to get it by asking nicely. Secondly, I slightly dispute his idea that we have a very structured Bill regarding user-to-user and so on. We have a very structured Bill from a harms perspective that describes the harms that must be prevented—and then we got to commercial porn, and we can also get to these other things.
I agree with the noble Lord’s point about freedom of speech, but we are talking about a fixed set of harms that will, I hope, be in the Bill by the end. We can then say that if children are likely to be accessed by this test, and known harm is there, that is what we are looking at. We are certainly not looking at the noble Lord’s blog.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I appreciate the intervention by the noble Baroness; I hope through this grit we may conjure up a pearl of some sort. The original concept of the Bill, as championed by the noble Baroness, would have been a generalised set of duties of care which could have stretched much more broadly. It has evolved in a particular direction and become ever more specific and tailored to those three services: user-to-user, search, and pornography services. Having arrived at that point, it is difficult to then open it back up and stretch it to reach other forms of service.
My intention in intervening in this debate is to raise some of those concerns because I think they are legitimate. I may be at the more sceptical end of the political world, but I am at the more regulation-friendly end of the tech community. This is said in a spirit of trying to create a Bill that will actually work. I have done the work, and I know how hard Ofcom’s job will be. That sums up what I am trying to say: my concern is that we should not give Ofcom an impossible job. We have defined something quite tight—many people still object to it, think it is too loose and do not agree with it—but I think we have something reasonably workable. I am concerned that, however tempting it is, by re-opening Pandora’s box we may end up creating something less workable.
That does not mean we should forget about app stores and non-user-to-user content, but we need to think of a way of dealing with those which does not necessarily just roll over the mechanism we have created in the Online Safety Bill to other forms of application.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, because I want to see this Bill implemented but strengthened in order to fulfil the admirable intention that children must be safe wherever they are online. This will not be the case unless child safety duties are applicable in all digital environments likely to be accessed by children. This is not overly ambitious or unrealistic; the platforms need clarity as to these new responsibilities and Ofcom must be properly empowered to enforce the rules without worrying about endless legal challenges. These amendments will give that much-needed clarity in this complex area.
As the Joint Committee recommended, this regulatory alignment would simplify compliance with businesses while giving greater clarity to people who use the service and greater protection for children. It would give confidence to parents and children that they need not work out if they are in a regulated or unregulated service while online. The Government promised that the onus for keeping young people safe online would sit squarely on the tech companies’ shoulders.
Without these amendments, there is a real danger that a loophole will remain whereby some services, even those that are known to harm, are exempt, leaving thousands of children exposed to harm. They would also help to future-proof the Bill. For example, some parts of the metaverse as yet undeveloped may be out of scope, but already specialist police units have raised concerns that abuse rooms, limited to one user, are being used to practise violence and sexual violence against women and girls.
We can and must make this good Bill even better and support all the amendments in this group.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, as I listen to the words echoing around the Chamber, I try to put myself in the shoes of parents or children who, in one way or another, have suffered as a result of exposure to things happening online. Essentially, the world that we are talking about has been allowed to grow like Topsy, largely unregulated, at a global level and at a furious pace, and that is still happening as we do this. The horses have not just bolted the stable; they are out of sight and across the ocean. We are talking about controlling and understanding an environment that is moving so quickly that, however fast we move, we will be behind it. Whatever mousetraps we put in place to try to protect children, we know there are going to be loopholes, not least because children individually are probably smarter than we are collectively at knowing how to get around well-meaning safeguards.
There are ways of testing what is happening. Certain organisations have used what they term avatars. Essentially, you create mythical profiles of children, which are clearly stated as being children, and effectively let them loose in the online world in various directions on various platforms and observe what happens. The tests that have been done on this—we will go into this in more detail on Thursday when we talk about safety by design—are pretty eye-watering. The speed with which these avatars, despite being openly stated as being profiles of children, are deluged by a variety of content that should be nowhere near children is dramatic and incredibly effective.
I put it to the Minister and the Bill team that one of the challenges for Ofcom will be not to be so far behind the curve that it is always trying to catch up. It is like being a surfer: if you are going to keep going then you have to keep on the front side of the wave. The minute you fall behind it, you are never going to catch up. I fear that, however well-intentioned so much of the Bill is, unless and until His Majesty’s Government and Ofcom recognise that we are probably already slightly behind the crest of the wave, whatever we try to do and whatever safeguards we put in place are not necessarily going to work.
One way we can try to make what we do more effective is the clever, forensic use of approaches such as avatars, not least because I suspect their efficacy will be dramatically increased by the advent and use of AI.
Lord Bethell (Con)
Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, put it very well:
“Kids are born digital, they’re digital kids now … And it is, I think, really important to set some hard rails around it”.
The truth is that in the area of app stores, Google and Apple, which, as we have heard, have a more than 95% share of the market, are just not voluntarily upholding their responsibilities in making the UK a safe place for children online. There is an air of exceptionalism about the way they behave that suggests they think the digital world is somehow different from the real world. I do not accept that, which is why I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Harding and others—Amendments 19, 22, 298, 299 and other connected amendments.
There are major holes in the app stores’ child safety measures, which mean that young teens can access adult apps that offer dating, random chats, casual sex and gambling, even when Apple and Google emphatically know that the user is a minor. I will give an example. Using an Apple ID for a simulated 14 year-old, the Tech Transparency Project looked at 80 apps in the App Store that are theoretically limited to 17 and older. It found that underage users could very easily evade age restrictions in the vast majority of cases. There is a dating app that opens directly into pornography before ever asking the user’s age; adult chat apps filled with explicit images that never ask the user’s age, and a gambling app that lets the minor account deposit and withdraw money.
What kind of apps are we talking about here? We are talking about apps such as UberHoney; Eros, the hook-up and adult chat app; Hahanono—Chat & Get Naughty, and Cash Clash Games: Win Money. The investigation found that Apple and other apps essentially pass the buck to each other when it comes to blocking underage users, making it easy for young teens to slip through the system. My day-to-day experience as a parent of four children completely echoes that investigation, and it is clear to me that Apple and Google just do not share age data with the apps in their app stores, or else children would not be able to download those apps.
There is a wilful blindness to minors tweaking their age. Parental controls on mobile phones are, to put it politely, a joke. It takes a child a matter of minutes to circumvent them—I know from my experience—and I have wasted many hours fruitlessly trying to control these arrangements. That is just not good enough for any business. It is not good enough because so many teenagers have mobile phones, as we discussed—two-thirds of children have a smartphone by the age of 10. Moreover, it is not good enough because they are accessing huge amounts of filthy content, dodgy services and predatory adults, things that would never be allowed in the real world. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England revealed that one in 10 children had viewed pornography by the time they were nine years old. The impact on their lives is profound: just read the testimony on the recent Mumsnet forums about the awful impact of pornography on their children’s lives.
To prevent minors from accessing adult-only apps, the most efficient measure would be, as my noble friend Lady Harding pointed out, to check users’ ages during the distribution step, which means directly in the app store or on the web browser, prior to the app store or the internet browser initiating the app or the platform download. This can be done without the developer knowing the user’s specific age. Developing a reliable age-verification regime applied at that “distribution layer” of the internet supply chain would significantly advance the UK’s objective of creating a safer online experience and set a precedent that Governments around the world could follow. It would apply real-world principles to the internet.
This would not absolve any developer, app or platform of their responsibilities under existing legislation—not at all: it would build on that. Instead, it would simply mandate that every player in the ecosystem, right from the app store distribution layer, was legally obliged to promote a safer experience online. That is completely consistent with the principles and aims of the Online Safety Bill.
These amendments would subject two of the biggest tech corporations to the same duties regarding their app stores as we do the wider digital ecosystem and the real world. It is all about age assurance and protecting children. To the noble Lord, Lord Allan, I say that I cannot understand why my corner shop requires proof of age to buy cigarettes, pornography or booze, but Apple and Google think it is okay to sell apps with inappropriate content and services without proper age-verification measures and with systems that are wilfully unreliable.
There is a tremendous amount that is very good about Tim Cook’s commitment to privacy and his objections to the data industrial complex; but in this matter of the app stores, the big tech companies have had a blind spot to child safety for decades and a feeling of exceptionalism that is just no longer relevant. These amendments are an important step in requiring that app store owners step up to their responsibilities and that we apply the same standards to shopkeepers in the digital world as we would to shopkeepers in the real world.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I enter this Committee debate with great trepidation. I do not have the knowledge and expertise of many of your Lordships, who I have listened to with great interest. What I do have is experience working with children, for over 40 years, and as a parent myself. I want to make what are perhaps some innocent remarks.
I was glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford raised the issue of online gaming. I should perhaps declare an interest, in that I think Liverpool is the third-largest centre of online gaming in terms of developing those games. It is interesting to note that over 40% of the entertainment industry’s global revenue comes from gaming, and it is steadily growing year on year.
If I am an innocent or struggle with some of these issues, imagine how parents must feel when they try to cope every single day. I suppose that the only support they currently have, other than their own common sense of course, are rating verifications or parental controls. Even the age ratings confuse them, because there are different ratings for different situations. We know that films are rated by the British Board of Film Classification, which also rates Netflix and now Amazon. But it does not rate Disney, which has its own ratings system.
We also know that the gaming industry has a different ratings system: the PEGI system, which has a number linked to an age. For example PEGI 16, if a parent knew this, says that that rating is required when depiction of violence or sexual activity reaches a stage where it looks realistic. The PEGI system also has pictures showing that.
Thanks to the Video Recordings Act 1984, the PEGI 12, PEGI 16 and PEGI 18 ratings became legally enforceable in the UK, meaning that retailers cannot sell those video games to those below those ages. If a child or young person goes in, they could not be sold those games. However, the Video Recordings Act does not currently apply to online games, meaning that children’s safety in online gaming relies primarily on parents setting up parental controls.
I will listen with great interest to the tussles between various learned Lords, as all these issues show to me that perhaps the most important issue will come several Committee days down the path, when we talk about media literacy. That is because it is not just about enforcement, regulation or ratings; it is about making sure that parents have the understanding and the capacity. Let us not forget this about young people: noble Lords have talked about them all having a phone and wanting to go on pornographic sites, but I do not think that is the case at all. Often, young people, because of peer pressure and because of their innocence, are drawn into unwise situations. Then there are the risks that gaming can lead to: for example, gaming addiction was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. There is also the health impact and maybe a link with violent behaviour. There is the interactive nature of video game players, cyber bullying and the lack of a feeling of well-being. All these things can happen, which is why we need media literacy to ensure that young people know of those risks and how to cope with them.
The other thing that we perhaps need to look at is standardising some of the simple gateposts that we currently have, hence the amendment.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I support Amendments 19, 22 and so on in the name of my noble friend Lady Harding, on app stores. She set it out so comprehensively that I am not sure there is much I can add. I simply want to thank her for her patience as she led me through the technical arguments.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, one of our clergy in the diocese of Guildford has been campaigning for more than a decade, as have others in this Committee, on children’s access to online pornography. With her, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding.
Her concerns eventually made their way to the floor of the General Synod of the Church of England in a powerful debate in July last year. The synod voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion, which said that we
“acknowledge that our children and young people are suffering grave harm from free access to online pornography”
and urged us to
“have in place age verification systems to prevent children from having access to those sites”.
It asked Her Majesty’s Government to use their best endeavours to secure the passage and coming into force of legislation requiring age-verification systems preventing access by people under the age of 18. It also recommended more social and educational programmes to increase awareness of the harms of pornography, including self-generated sexually explicit images.
Introducing the motion, my chaplain, Reverend Jo Winn-Smith, said that age verification
“ought to be a no-brainer … Exposure to sexualised material is more likely to lead to young people engaging in more sexualised behaviour and to feel social pressure to have sex”,
as well as normalising sexual violence against girls and women. A speech from the chaplain-general of the Prison Service towards the end of the debate highlighted just where such behaviours and pressures could lead in extreme circumstances.
One major theme that emerged during the debate is highlighted by the amendments this afternoon: that access to online pornography goes far beyond materials that fall into what the Bill defines as Part 5 services. Another is highlighted in a further group of amendments: age assurance needs to be both mandatory and effective beyond reasonable doubt.
It was also commented on how this whole area has taken such an age to get on to the statute book, given David Cameron’s proposals way back in 2013 and further legislation proposed in 2018 that was never enacted. Talk of secondary legislation to define harmful content in that regard is alarming, as a further amendment indicates, given the dragging of feet that has now been perpetuated for more than a decade. That is a whole generation of children and young people.
In an imaginative speech in the synod debate, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, Archbishop Stephen, reminded us that the internet is not a platform; it is a public space, where all the rights and norms you would expect in public should apply. In the 1970s, he continued, we famously put fluoride in the water supply, because we knew it would be great for dental health; now is the opportunity to put some fluoride into the internet. I add only this: let us not water down the fluoride to a point where it becomes feeble and ineffective.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendments in this group in the names of the intrepid noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and my noble friend Lord Storey—we are kindred spirits.
As my noble friend said, the expectations of parents are clear: they expect the Bill to protect their children from all harm online, wherever it is encountered. The vast majority of parents do not distinguish between the different content types. To restrict regulation to user-to-user services, as in Part 3, would leave a great many websites and content providers, which are accessed by children, standing outside the scope of the Bill. This is a flagship piece of legislation; there cannot be any loopholes leaving any part of the internet unregulated. If there is a website, app, online game, educational platform or blog—indeed, any content that contains harmful material—it must be in the scope of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, seeks to amend the Bill to ensure that it aligns with the Information Commissioner’s age-appropriate design code—it is a welcome amendment. As the Bill is currently drafted, the threshold for risk assessment is too high. It is important that the greatest number of children and young people are protected from harmful content online. The amendments achieve that to a greater degree than the protection already in the Bill.
While the proposal to align with the age-appropriate design code is welcome, I have one reservation. Up until recently, it appears that the ICO was reluctant to take action against pornography platforms that process children’s data. It has perhaps been deemed that pornographic websites are unlikely to be accessed by children. Over the years, I have shared with this House the statistics of how children are accessing pornography and the harm it causes. The Children’s Commissioner also recently highlighted the issue and concerns. Pornography is being accessed by our children, and we must ensure that the provisions of the Bill are the most robust they can be to ensure that children are protected online.
I am concerned with ensuring two things: first, that any platform that contains harmful material falls under the scope of the Bill and is regulated to ensure that children are kept safe; and, secondly, that, as far as possible, what is harmful offline is regulated in the same way online. The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Storey raise the important question of online-offline equality. Amendments 33A and 217A seek to regulate online video games to ensure they meet the same BBFC ratings as would be expected offline, and I agree with that approach. Later in Committee, I will raise this issue in relation to pornographic content and how online content should be subject to the same BBFC guidance as content offline. I agree with what my noble friend proposes: namely, that this should extend to video game content as well. Video games can be violent and sexualised in nature, and controls should be in place to ensure that children are protected. The BBFC guidelines used offline appear to be the best way to regulate online as well.
Children must be kept safe wherever they are online. This Bill must have the widest scope possible to keep children safe, but ensuring online/offline alignment is crucial. The best way to keep children safe is to legislate for regulation that is as far reaching as possible but consistently applied across the online/offline world. These are the reasons why I support the amendments in this group.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will lend my support to Amendments 19 and 22. It is a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I may be one of those people in your Lordships’ House who relies significantly on the British Board of Film Classification for movie watching, as I am one of the faint-hearted.
In relation to app stores, it is not just children under 18 for whom parents need the age verification. If you are a parent of a child who has significant learning delay, the internet is a wonderful place where they can get access to material and have development that they might not ordinarily have had. But, of course, turning 17 or 18 is not the threshold for them. I have friends who have children with significant learning delay. Having that assurance, so they know which apps are which in the app store, goes well beyond 18 for them. Obviously it will not be a numerical equivalent for their child—now a young adult—but it is important to them to know that the content they get on a free app or an app purchased from the app store is suitable.
I just wanted to raise that with noble Lords, as children and some vulnerable adults—not all—would benefit from the kind of age verification that we have talked about. I appreciate the points that the noble Lord, Lord Allan, raised about where the Bill has ended up conceptually and the framework that Ofcom will rely on. Like him, I am a purist sometimes but, pragmatically, I think that the third concept raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about protection and putting this in the app store and bringing it parallel with things such as classification for films and other video games is really important.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this has been a really fascinating debate and I need to put a stake in the ground pretty early on by saying that, although my noble friend Lord Allan has raised some important points and stimulated an important debate, I absolutely agree with the vast majority of noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendment so cogently put forward by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding.
Particularly as a result of the Bill’s being the subject of a Joint Committee, it has changed considerably over time in response to comment, pressure, discussion and debate and I believe very much that during Committee stage we will be able to make changes, and I hope the Minister will be flexible enough. I do not believe that the framework of the Bill is set in concrete. There are many things we can do as we go through, particularly in the field of making children safer, if we take some of the amendments that have been put forward on board. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, set out why the current scope of the Bill will fail to protect children if it is kept to user-to-user and search services. She talked about blogs with limited functionalities, gaming without user functionalities and mentioned the whole immersive environment, which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, described as eye-watering. As she said, it is not fair to leave parents or children to work out whether they are on a regulated service. Children must be safe wherever they are online.
As someone who worked with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in putting the appropriate design code in place in that original Data Protection Act, I am a fervent believer that it is perfectly appropriate to extend in the way that is proposed today. I also support her second amendment, which would bring the Bill’s child user condition in line with the threshold of the age-appropriate design code. It is the expectation—I do not think it an unfair expectation—of parents, teachers and children themselves that the Bill will apply to children wherever they are online. Regulating only certain services will mean that emerging technologies that do not fit the rather narrow categories will not be subject to safety duties.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. This is an important group of amendments, and it has been a useful debate. I was slightly concerned when I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, talk about using her daughter’s device to see whether it could access porn sites in terms of what that is going to do to her daughter’s algorithm and what it will now feed her. I will put that concern to one side, but any future report on that would be most welcome.
Amendments 2, 3 and 5, introduced so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, test what should be in scope to protect children. Clearly, we have a Bill that has evolved over some time, with many Ministers, to cover unambiguously social media, as user-to-user content, and search. I suspect that we will spend a lot more time discussing social media than search, but I get the rationale that those are perhaps the two main access points for a lot of the content we are concerned about. However, I would argue that apps are also main access points. I will come on to discuss the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, which I have also signed. If we are going to go with access points, it is worth probing and testing the Government’s intent in excluding some of these other things. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raises in his amendments the issue of games, as others have done. Games are clearly a point of access for lots of children, as well as adults, and there is plenty of harm that can be created as a result of consuming them.
Along with some other noble Lords, some time ago I attended an all-party group which looked at the problems related to incel harm online and how people are breadcrumbed from mainstream sites to quite small websites to access the really problematic, most hateful and most dangerous content. Those small websites, as far as I can see, are currently excluded from the regime in the Bill, but the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, potentially would bring them into scope. That meeting also discussed cloud services and the supply chain of the technical infrastructure that such risks, including incels and other things, use. Why are cloud services not included in some context in terms of the harms that might be created?
Questions have been asked about large language model AIs such as ChatGPT. These are future technologies that have now arrived, which lots of people are talking about and variously freaking out about or getting excited by. There is an important need to bring those quite quickly into the scope of regulation by Ofcom. ChatGPT is a privately owned platform—a privately owned technology—that is offering up not only access to the range of knowledge that is online but, essentially, the range of human concepts that are online in interaction with that knowledge—privately owned versions of truth.
What is to stop any very rich individual deciding to start their own large language model with their own version of the truth, perhaps using their own platform? Former President Trump comes to mind as someone who could do that and I suggest that, if truth is now a privatised thing, we might want to have some regulation here.
The future-proofing issues are why we should be looking very seriously at the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, as always, and I have reflected a lot on his very useful car safety and plane safety regulation analogy from our previous day in Committee. The proportionality issue that he raised in his useful contribution this time is potentially addressed by the proposed new clause we discussed last time. If the Bill sets out quite clearly the aim of the legislation, that would set the frame for the regulator and for how it would regulate proportionately the range of internet services that might be brought into scope by this set of amendments.
I also support Amendment 92, on bringing in safety by design and the regime that has been so successful in respect of the age-related design code and the probability of access by children, rather than what is set out in the Bill.
I turn to Amendments 19, 22, 298 and 299 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Stowell, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and myself. Others, too, have drawn the analogy between app stores and corner shops selling alcohol, and it makes sense to think about the distribution points in the system—the pinch points that all users go through—and to see whether there is a viable way of protecting people and regulating through those pinch points. The Bill seeks to protect us via the platforms that host and promote content having regulation imposed on them, and risk assessments and so on, but it makes a lot of sense to add app stores, given how we now consume the internet.
I remember, all those years ago, having CD drives—floppy disk drives, even—in computers, and going off to buy software from a retail store and having to install it. I do not go quite as far back as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, but I remember those days well. Nowadays as consumers almost all of us access our software through app stores, be it software for our phones or software for our laptops. That is the distribution point for mobiles and essentially it is, as others have said, a duopoly that we hope will be addressed by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill.
As others have said, 50% of children under 10 in this country use smartphones and tablets. When you get to the 12 to 15 bracket, you find that 97% of them use mobile phones and tablets. We have, as noble Lords have also said, Google Family Link and the Apple Family Sharing function. That is something we use in my family. My stepdaughter is 11—she will be 12 in June—and I appear to be in most cases the regulator who has to give her the Family Link code to go on to Google Classroom when she does her homework, and who has to allow her to download an app or add another contact—there is a whole range of things on her phone for which I provide the gatekeeper function. But you have to be relatively technically competent and confident to do all those things, and to manage her screen time, and I would like to see more protection for those who do not have that confidence—and indeed for myself as well, because maybe I would not have to be bothered quite as often.
It is worth noting that the vast majority of children in this country who have smartphones—the last time I looked at the stats, it was around 80%—have iPhones; there must be a lot of old iPhones that have been recycled down the family. To have an iCloud account, if you are under 13, you have to go through a parent or other suitable adult. However, if you are over 13, you can get on with it; that raises a whole set of issues and potential harms for children over the age of 13.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I share noble Lords’ determination to deliver the strongest protections for children and to develop a robust and future-proofed regulatory regime. However, it will not be possible to solve every problem on the internet through this Bill, nor through any piece of legislation, flagship or otherwise. The Bill has been designed to confer duties on the services that pose the greatest risk of harm—user-to-user services and search services—and where there are proportionate measures that companies can take to protect their users.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others anticipated, I must say that these services act as a gateway for users to discover and access other online content through search results and links shared on social media. Conferring duties on these services will therefore significantly reduce the risk of users going on to access illegal or harmful content on non-regulated services, while keeping the scope of the Bill manageable and enforceable.
As noble Lords anticipated, there is also a practical consideration for Ofcom in all this. I know that many noble Lords are extremely keen to see this Bill implemented as swiftly as possible; so am I. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, rightly pointed out, making major changes to the Bill’s scope at this stage would have significant implications for Ofcom’s implementation timelines. I say this at the outset because I want to make sure that noble Lords are aware of those implications as we look at these issues.
I turn first to Amendments 2, 3, 5, 92 and 193, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. These aim to expand the number of services covered by the Bill to incorporate a broader range of services accessed by children and a broader range of harms. I will cover the broader range of harms more fully in a separate debate when we come to Amendment 93, but I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her constructive and detailed discussions on these issues over the past few weeks and months.
These amendments would bring new services into scope of the duties beyond user-to-user and search services. This could include services which enable or promote commercial harms, including consumer businesses such as online retailers. As I have just mentioned in relation to the previous amendments, bringing many more services into scope would delay the implementation of Ofcom’s priorities and risk detracting from its work overseeing existing regulated services where the greatest risk of harm exists—we are talking here about the services run by about 2.5 million businesses in the UK alone. I hope noble Lords will appreciate from the recent communications from Ofcom how challenging the implementation timelines already are, without adding further complication.
Amendment 92 seeks to change the child-user condition in the children’s access assessment to the test in the age-appropriate design code. The test in the Bill is already aligned with the test in that code, which determines whether a service is likely to be accessed by children, in order to ensure consistency for providers. The current child-user condition determines that a service is likely to be accessed by children where it has a significant number or proportion of child users, or where it is of a kind likely to attract a significant number or proportion of child users. This will already bring into scope services of the kind set out in this amendment, such as those which are designed or intended for use by children, or where children form a—
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt. Will the Minister take the opportunity to say what “significant” means, because that is not aligned with the ICO code, which has different criteria?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
If I can finish my point, this will bring into scope services of the kind set out in the amendments, such as those designed or intended for use by children, or where children form a substantial and identifiable user group. The current condition also considers the nature and content of the service and whether it has a particular appeal for children. Ofcom will be required to consult the Information Commissioner’s Office on its guidance to providers on fulfilling this test, which will further support alignment between the Bill and the age-appropriate design code.
On the meaning of “significant”, a significant number of children means a significant number in itself or a significant proportion of the total number of UK-based users on the service. In the Bill, “significant” has its ordinary meaning, and there are many precedents for it in legislation. Ofcom will be required to produce and publish guidance for providers on how to make the children’s access assessment. Crucially, the test in the Bill provides more legal certainty and clarity for providers than the test outlined in the code. “Substantive” and “identifiable”, as suggested in this amendment, do not have such a clear legal meaning, so this amendment would give rise to the risk that the condition is more open to challenge from providers and more difficult to enforce. On the other hand, as I said, “significant” has an established precedent in legislation, making it easier for Ofcom, providers and the courts to interpret.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, talked about the importance of future-proofing the Bill and emerging technologies. As he knows, the Bill has been designed to be technology neutral and future-proofed, to ensure that it keeps pace with emerging technologies. It will apply to companies which enable users to share content online or to interact with each other, as well as to search services. Search services using AI-powered features will be in scope of the search duties. The Bill is also clear that content generated by AI bots is in scope where it interacts with user-generated content, such as bots on Twitter. The metaverse is also in scope of the Bill. Any service which enables users to interact as the metaverse does will have to conduct a child access test and comply with the child safety duties if it is likely to be accessed by children.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I know it has been said that the large language models, such as that used by ChatGPT, will be in scope when they are embedded in search, but are they in scope generally?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
They are when they apply to companies enabling users to share content online and interact with each other or in terms of search. They apply in the context of the other duties set out in the Bill.
Amendments 19, 22, 298 and 299, tabled by my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe, seek to impose child safety duties on application stores. I am grateful to my noble friend and others for the collaborative approach that they have shown and for the time that they have dedicated to discussing this issue since Second Reading. I appreciate that she has tabled these amendments in the spirit of facilitating a conversation, which I am willing to continue to have as the Bill progresses.
As my noble friend knows from our discussions, there are challenges with bringing application stores—or “app stores” as they are popularly called—into the scope of the Bill. Introducing new duties on such stores at this stage risks slowing the implementation of the existing child safety duties, in the way that I have just outlined. App stores operate differently from user-to-user and search services; they pose different levels of risk and play a different role in users’ experiences online. Ofcom would therefore need to recruit different people, or bring in new expertise, to supervise effectively a substantially different regime. That would take time and resources away from its existing priorities.
We do not think that that would be a worthwhile new route for Ofcom, given that placing child safety duties on app stores is unlikely to deliver any additional protections for children using services that are already in the scope of the Bill. Those services must already comply with their duties to keep children safe or will face enforcement action if they do not. If companies do not comply, Ofcom can rely on its existing enforcement powers to require app stores to remove applications that are harmful to children. I am happy to continue to discuss this matter with my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, in the context of the differing implementation timelines, as he has asked.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
The Minister just said something that was material to this debate. He said that Ofcom has existing powers to prevent app stores from providing material that would have caused problems for the services to which they allow access. Can he confirm that?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Perhaps the noble Lord could clarify his question; I was too busy finishing my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Knight.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
It is a continuation of the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and it seems that it will go part of the way towards resolving the differences that remain between the Minister and the noble Baroness, which I hope can be bridged. Let me put it this way: is it the case that Ofcom either now has powers or will have powers, as a result of the Bill, to require app stores to stop supplying children with material that is deemed in breach of the law? That may be the basis for understanding how you can get through this. Is that right?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Services already have to comply with their duties to keep children safe. If they do not comply, Ofcom has powers of enforcement set out, which require app stores to remove applications that are harmful to children. We think this already addresses the point, but I am happy to continue discussing it offline with the noble Lord, my noble friend and others who want to explore how. As I say, we think this is already covered. A more general duty here would risk distracting from Ofcom’s existing priorities.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, on that point, my reading of Clauses 131 to 135, where the Bill sets out the business disruption measures, is that they could be used precisely in that way. It would be helpful for the Minister responding later to clarify that Ofcom would use those business disruption measures, as the Government explicitly anticipate, were an app store, in a rogue way, to continue to list a service that Ofcom has said should not be made available to people in the United Kingdom.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will be very happy to set that out in more detail.
Amendments 33A and 217A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would place a new duty on user-to-user services that predominantly enable online gaming. Specifically, they would require them to have a classification certificate stating the age group for which they are suitable. We do not think that is necessary, given that there is already widespread, voluntary uptake of approval classification systems in online gaming.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I thank the Minister for an excellent debate; I will make two points. First, I think the Minister was perhaps answering on my original amendment, which I have narrowed considerably to services
“likely to be accessed by children”
and with proven harm on the basis of the harms described by the Bill. It is an “and”, not an “or”, allowing Ofcom to go after places that have proven to be harmful.
Secondly, I am not sure the Government can have it both ways—that it is the same as the age-appropriate design code but different in these ways—because it is exactly in the ways that it is different that I am suggesting the Government might improve. We will come back to both those things.
Finally, what are we asking here? We are asking for a risk assessment. The Government say there is no risk assessment, no harm, no mitigation, nothing to do. This is a major principle of the conversations we will have going forward over a number of days. I also believe in proportionality. It is basic product safety; you have a look, you have standards, and if there is nothing to do, let us not make people do silly things. I think we will return to these issues, because they are clearly deeply felt, and they are very practical, and my own feeling is that we cannot risk thousands of children not benefiting from all the work that Ofcom is going to do. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Fox of Buckley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the two tests currently set out in subsection (5) of clause 3, relating to a service’s links with the United Kingdom, with a requirement that the service have at least a million monthly United Kingdom users.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4, I will also speak to Amendments 6 to 8 and 12 and consequential Amendments 288 and 305, largely grouped under the heading “exemptions”. In this group I am also particularly sympathetic to Amendment 9 in the names of the noble Lords, Moylan and Lord Vaizey, and I will leave them to motivate that. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, an explanation for his Amendment 9A.
Last Wednesday we discussed the purposes of the Bill, and there was much agreement across the Chamber on one issue at least: that we need to stay focused and make sure that an already highly complex piece of legislation does not become even more unwieldy. My concern in general is that the Bill already suffers throughout from being overly broad in its aims, resulting in restricting the online experience and expressions of everyone. This series of amendments is about trying to rein in the scope, allowing us to focus on clear targets rather than a one-size-fits-all Bill that sweeps all in its wake with perhaps unintended and damaging consequences.
The Bill creates an extraordinary set of regulatory burdens on tens of thousands of British businesses, micro-communities and tech platforms, no matter the size. The impact assessment claims that 25,000 businesses are in scope, and that is considered a conservative estimate. This implies that an extraordinary range of platforms, from Mumsnet and Wikipedia to whisky-tasting forums and Reddit, will be caught up in this Bill. Can we find a way of removing the smaller platforms from scope? It will destroy too many of them if they have to comply with the regulatory burden created with huge Silicon Valley behemoths in mind.
Let us consider some of the regulatory duties that these entities are expected to comply with. They will need to undertake extensive assessments that must be repeated whenever a product changes. They will need to proactively remove certain types of content, involving assessing the risk of users encountering each type of illegal content, the speed of dissemination and functionality, the design of the platform and the nature and severity of the risk of harms presented to individual users. This will mean assessing their user base and implementing what are effectively surveillance systems to monitor all activity on their platforms.
Let us consider what a phrase such as “prevent from encountering” would mean to a web host such as Wikipedia. It would mean that it would need to scan and proactively analyse millions of edits across 250 languages for illegality under UK-specific law and then block content in defiance of the wishes of its own user community. There is much more, of course. Rest assured, Ofcom’s guidance and risk assessment will, over time, increase the regulatory complexity and the burdens involved.
Those technological challenges do not even consider the mountain of paperwork and administrative obligations that will be hugely costly and time consuming. All that might be achievable, if onerous, for larger platforms. But for smaller ones it could prove a significant problem, with SMEs and organisations working with a public benefit remit particularly vulnerable. Platforms with the largest profits and the most staff dedicated to compliance will, as a consequence, dominate at the expense of start-ups, small companies and community-run platforms.
No doubt the Government and the Minister will assure us that the duties are not so onerous and that they are manageable and proportionate. The impact assessment estimates that implementing the Bill will cost businesses £2.5 billion over the first 10 years, but all the commentators I have read think this is likely to be a substantial underestimate, especially when we are told in the same impact assessment that the legal advice is estimated to cost £39.23 per hour. I do not know what lawyers the Government hang out with, but they appear not to have a clue about the going rate for specialist law firms.
Also, what about the internal staff time? Again, the impact assessment assumes that staff will require only 30 minutes to familiarise themselves with the requirements of the legislation and 90 minutes to read, assess and change the terms and conditions in response to the requirements. Is this remotely serious? Even working through the groups of amendments has taken me hours. It has been like doing one of those 1,000-piece jigsaws, but at least at the end of those you get to see the complete picture. Instead, I felt as though somebody had come in and thrown all the pieces into the air again. I was as confused as ever.
If dealing with groups of amendments to this Bill is complex, that is nothing on the Bill itself, which is dense and often impenetrable. Last week, the Minister helpfully kept telling us to read the Explanatory Notes. I have done that several times and I am still in a muddle, yet somehow the staff of small tech companies will conquer all this and the associated regulatory changes in an hour and a half.
Many fear that this will replicate the worst horrors of GDPR, which, according to some estimates, led to an 8% reduction in the profits of smaller firms while it had little or no effect on the profits of large tech companies. That does not even take into account the cost of the near nervous breakdowns that GDPR caused small organisations, as I know from my colleagues at the Academy of Ideas.
These amendments try to tackle this disproportionate burden on smaller platforms—those companies that are, ironically, often useful challenges and antidotes to big tech’s dominance. The amendments would exempt them unless there is a good reason for specific platforms to be in scope. Of course, cutting out those in scope may not appeal to everyone here. From looking at the ever-increasing amendments list, it seems that some noble Lords have an appetite for expanding the number of services the legislation will apply to; we have already heard the discussion about app stores and online gaming. But we should note that the Government have carved out other exemptions for certain services that are excluded from the new regulatory system. They have not included emails, SMS messages, one-to-one oral communications and so on. I am suggesting some extra exemptions and that we remove services with fewer than 1 million monthly UK users. Ofcom would have the power to issue the provider with a notice bringing them into scope, but only based on reasonable grounds, having identified a safety risk and with 30 days’ notice.
If we do not tackle this, I fear that there is a substantial, serious and meaningful risk that smaller platforms based outside and inside the UK will become inaccessible to British users. It is notable that over 1,000 US news websites blocked European users during the EU’s introduction of GDPR, if noble Lords remember. Will there be a similar response to this law? What, for example, will the US search engine DuckDuckGo conclude? The search engine emphasises privacy and refuses to gather information on its users, meaning that it will be unable to fulfil the duties contained in the Bill of identifying or tailoring search results to users based on their age. Are we happy for it to go?
I fear that this Bill will reduce the number of tech platforms operating in the UK. This is anti-competitive. I do not say that because I have a particular commitment to competition and the free market, by the way. I do so because competition is essential and important for users’ choice and empowerment, and for free speech—something I fear the Bill is threatening. Indeed, the Lords’ Communications and Digital Committee’s extensive inquiry into the implications of giving large tech companies what is effectively a monopoly on defining which speech is free concluded:
“Increasing competition is crucial to promoting freedom of expression online. In a more competitive market, platforms would have to be more responsive to users’ concerns about freedom of expression and other rights”.
That is right. If users are concerned that a platform is failing to uphold their freedom of expression, they can join a different platform with greater ease if there is a wide choice. Conversely, users who are concerned that they do not want to view certain types of material would be more easily able to choose another platform that proscribes said material in its terms and conditions.
I beg to move the amendment as a way of defending diversity, choice and innovation—and as a feeble attempt to make the Bill proportionate.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 9, which I will be able to do fairly briefly because a great deal of the material on which my case rests has already been given to the Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I will make the more general and reflective point that there are two different views in the Committee that somehow need to be reconciled over the next few weeks. There is a group of noble Lords who are understandably and passionately concerned about child safety. In fact, we all share that concern. There are others of us who believe that this Bill, its approach and the measures being inserted into it will have massive ramifications outside the field of child safety, for adults, of course, but also for businesses, as the noble Baroness explained. The noble Baroness and I, and others like us, believe that these are not sufficiently taken into account either by the Bill or by those pressing for measures to be harsher and more restrictive.
Some sort of balance needs to be found. At Second Reading my noble friend the Minister said that the balance had been struck in the right place. It is quite clear that nobody really agrees with that, except on the principle, which I think is always a cop-out, that if everyone disagrees with you, you must be right, which I have never logically understood in any sense at all. I hope my noble friend will not resort to claiming that he has got it right simply because everyone disagrees with him in different ways.
My amendment is motivated by the considerations set out by the noble Baroness, which I therefore do not need to repeat. It is the Government’s own assessment that between 20,000 and 25,000 businesses will be affected by the measures in this Bill. A great number of those—some four-fifths—are small businesses or micro-businesses. The Government appear to think in their assessment that only 120 of those are high risk. The reason they think they are high risk is not that they are engaged in unpleasant activities but simply that they are engaged in livestreaming and contacting new people. That might be for nefarious purposes but equally, it might not, so the 120 we need to worry about could actually be a very small number. We handle this already through our own laws; all these businesses would still be subject to existing data protection laws and complying with the law generally on what they are allowed to publish and broadcast. It would not be a free-for-all or a wild west, even among that very small number of businesses.
My Amendment 9 takes a slightly different approach to dealing with this. I do not in any way disagree with or denigrate the approach taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but my approach would be to add two categories to the list of exemptions in the schedules. The first of these is services provided by small and medium-sized enterprises. We do not have to define those because there is already a law that helps define them for us: Section 33 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. My proposal is that we take that definition, and that those businesses that comply with it be outside the scope of the Bill.
The second area that I would propose exempting was also referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley: community-based services. The largest of these, and the one that frequently annoys us because it gets things wrong, is Wikipedia. I am a great user of Wikipedia but I acknowledge that it does make errors. Of course, most of the errors it makes, such as saying, “Lord Moylan has a wart on the end of his nose”, would not be covered by the Bill anyway. Nothing in the Bill will force people to correct factual statements that have been got wrong—my year of birth or country of birth, or whatever. That is not covered. Those are the things they usually get wrong and that normally annoy us when we see them.
However, I do think that these services are extremely valuable. Wikipedia is an immense achievement and a tremendous source of knowledge and information for people. The fact that it has been put together in this organic, community-led way over a number of years, in so many languages, is a tremendous advantage and a great human advance. Yet, under the proposed changes, Wikipedia would not be able to operate its existing model of people posting their comments.
Currently, you go on Wikipedia and you can edit it. Now, I know this would not apply to any noble Lords but, in the other place, it has been suggested that MPs have discovered how to do this. They illicitly and secretly go on to and edit their own pages, usually in a flattering way, so it is possible to do this. There is no prior restraint, and no checking in advance. There are moderators at Wikipedia—I do not know whether they are employed—who review what has been done over a period, but they do not do what this Bill requires, which is checking in advance.
It is not simply about Wikipedia; there are other community sites. Is it sensible that Facebook should be responsible if a little old lady alters the information on a community Facebook page about what is happening in the local parish? Why should Facebook be held responsible for that? Why would we want it to be responsible for it—and how could it do it without effectively censoring ordinary activities that people want to carry out, using the advantages of the internet that have been so very great?
What I am asking is not dramatic. We have many laws in which we very sensibly create exemptions for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am simply asking that this law be considered under that heading as well, and similarly for Wikipedia and community-based sites. It is slightly unusual that we have had to consider that; it is not normal, but it is very relevant to this Bill and I very much hope the Government will agree to it.
The answer that I would not find satisfactory—I say this in advance for the benefit of my noble friend the Minister, in relation to this and a number of other amendments I shall be moving in Committee—is that it will all be dealt with by Ofcom. That would not be good enough. We are the legislators and we want to know how these issues will be dealt with, so that the legitimate objectives of the Bill can be achieved without causing massive disruption, cost and disbenefit to adults.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and in particular the proposed new paragraph 10A to Schedule 1. I hope I will find myself more in tune with the mood of the Committee on this amendment than on previous ones. I would be interested to know whether any noble Lords believe that Ofcom should be spending its limited resources supervising a site like Wikipedia under the new regime, as it seems to me patently obvious that that is not what we intend; it is not the purpose of the legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is right to remind us that one of the joys of the internet is that you buy an internet connection, plug it in and there is a vast array of free-to-use services which are a community benefit, produced by the community for the community, with no harm within them. What we do not want to do is interfere with or somehow disrupt that ecosystem. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is right to remind us that there is a genuine risk of people withdrawing from the UK market. We should not sidestep that. People who try to be law-abiding will look at these requirements and ask themselves, “Can I meet them?” If the Wikimedia Foundation that runs Wikipedia does not think it can offer its service in a lawful way, it will have to withdraw from the UK market. That would be to the detriment of children in the United Kingdom, and certainly not to their benefit.
There are principle-based and practical reasons why we do not want Ofcom to be operating in this space. The principle-based one is that it makes me uncomfortable that a Government would effectively tell their regulator how to manage neutral information sites such as Wikipedia. There are Governments around the world who seek to do that; we do not want to be one of those.
The amendment attempts to define this public interest, neutral, informational service. It happens to be user-to-user but it is not like Facebook, Instagram or anything similar. I would feel much more comfortable making it clear in law that we are not asking Ofcom to interfere with those kinds of services. The practical reason is the limited time Ofcom will have available. We do not want it to be spending time on things that are not important.
Definitions are another example of how, with the internet, it can often be extremely hard to draw bright lines. Functionalities bleed into each other. That is not necessarily a problem, until you try to write something into law; then, you find that your definition unintentionally captures a service that you did not intend to capture, or unintentionally misses out a service that you did intend to be in scope. I am sure the Minister will reject the amendment because that is what Ministers do; but I hope that, if he is not willing to accept it, he will at least look at whether there is scope within the Bill to make it clear that Wikipedia is intended to be outside it.
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 refers to “limited functionality services”. That is a rich vein to mine. It is clear that the intention is to exclude mainstream media, for example. It refers to “provider content”. In this context, Encyclopaedia Britannica is not in scope but Wikipedia is, the difference being that Wikipedia is constructed by users, while Encyclopaedia Britannica is regarded as being constructed by a provider. The Daily Mail is outside scope; indeed, all mainstream media are outside scope. Anyone who declares themselves to be media—we will debate this later on—is likely to be outside scope.
Such provider exemption should be offered to other, similar services, even if they happen to be constructed from the good will of users as opposed to a single professional author. I hope the Minister will be able to indicate that the political intent is not that we should ask Ofcom to spend time and energy regulating Wikipedia-like services. If so, can he point to where in the legislation we might get that helpful interpretation, in order to ensure that Ofcom is focused on what we want it to be focused on and not on much lower priority issues?
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I will speak to a couple of the amendments in this group. First, small is not safe, and you cannot necessarily see these platforms in isolation. For example, there is an incel group that has only 4,000 active users, but it posts a great deal on YouTube and has 24.2 million users in that context. So we have to be clear that small and safe are not the same thing.
However, I am sympathetic to the risk-based approach. I should probably have declared an interest as someone who has given money to Wikipedia on several occasions to keep it going. I ask the Minister for some clarity on the systems and processes of the Bill, and whether the risk profile of Wikipedia—which does not entice you in and then follow you for the next six months once you have looked at something—is far lower than something very small that gets hold of you and keeps on going. I say that particularly in relation to children, but I feel it for myself also.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Morrow raised the point that the Bill needs to cover all online pornography. A factsheet on the Bill, helpfully circulated to Peers last week by the Government, says:
“The Bill’s regulatory framework will cover all online sites with pornographic content, including commercial pornography sites, social media, video-sharing platforms and fora. It will also cover search engines, which play a significant role in enabling children to access pornography”.
This is a welcome commitment but I would like to explore it further.
The Government say “all”, but the definition of which services are in scope of the Bill, as set out in Clause 3(5) and Clause 71(4), requires that there are either
“a significant number of United Kingdom users, or … United Kingdom users form one of the target markets for the service (or the only target market)”.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Morrow asked the Minister what will be considered as “significant”. Is it significant in terms of the total UK adult users who could use a service, or significant in terms of potential global users?
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, is exploring the same issue in her Amendment 4. She is proposing that the Bill’s current definition be replaced with something much easier to understand: that a site must have at least 1 million users per month in the UK to be within the scope of the Bill. That definition is certainly clear. However, I am looking forward to hearing whether it reflects the Government’s intention. For my part, I am concerned about what it might mean for clarifying which pornographic websites would fall into Part 3.
In December, the Government published an analysis carried out in January 2021 by the British Board of Film Classification on the top 200 pornographic websites. It reported that these 200 sites received 76% of the total UK visits to adult sites, based on data during August 2020. Ofcom published a similar list of the top 10 sites visited in September 2020—the site at number 10 had 3.8 million visitors. We do not know how many visitors there were to websites 100 or 200, but it is not unreasonable to speculate that it could be less than a million and would therefore fall outside the definition proposed by the noble Baroness, and nor is it clear whether those websites would fall within the Government’s original definition.
It is important for the Minister to tell the Committee quite clearly whether he expects the top 200 pornographic websites to be within the scope of Parts 3 and 5 of the Bill. If he does, I ask him to explain how that will be possible within the current definition in the Bill, not because I am trying to trip him up but as a genuine inquiry that the Bill does what we are expect it to do. If he does not expect the top 200 pornographic websites to be in scope, how many does he estimate would fall within Parts 3 and 5? Either way, it seems to me that there could be pornographic websites accessed in the United Kingdom that are not required to have age verification to protect those aged under 18 from accessing this content.
As I said, I doubt that this is what parents expect from this flagship Bill, especially as the Government set out in their factsheet that their own commissioned evidence says,
“exposure to pornography may impact children's perceptions of sex and relationships, may lead to replication of practices found in pornography, increased likelihood of engaging in sexual activities and harmful or aggressive behaviour, and reduced concern for consent from partners”.
It seems to me that “significant” should focus on the significant harm a website or content provider would cause if it were accessed in the UK. The number of visitors or popularity of the site should be irrelevant when considering whether or not children should be allowed to access it. My view is quite simple: if a website, social media or content provider wishes to host pornographic material, that is of potential significant harm to children and should be age-verified. I am therefore interested, given what the Government have said previously, to know whether the Minister agrees that all pornographic content must be age-verified if it is to be accessed in the UK. That is certainly what I believe most parents expect, and I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Moylan and Amendment 9. I declare an interest as an author and publisher.
Last week, we had the London Book Fair, and proposed new paragraph 10A could read almost like an executive summary of the main talking point, which was how AI will influence all aspects of the media but particularly publishing. For the sake of future-proofing, paragraph 10A would be a particularly useful step to adopt. Proposed new paragraph 10B would be in the interest of fairness because publishing, and a lot of media, is made up of micro-businesses, often one-man or one-woman companies. This is certain to happen with AI as well, as the intermediary roles are taken up by these. In the interest of future-proofing and fairness, I recommend this amendment.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, as my name is on Amendment 9, I speak to support these amendments and say that they are worthy of debate. As your Lordships know, I am extremely supportive of the Bill and hope that it will be passed in short order. It is much needed and overdue that we have the opportunity for legislation to provide us with a regulator that is able to hold platforms to account, protect users where it can and enhance child safety online. I can think of no better regulator for that role than Ofcom.
I have listened to the debate with great interest. Although I support the intentions of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment, I am not sure I agree with him that there are two cultures in this House, as far as the Bill is concerned; I think everybody is concerned about child safety. However, these amendments are right to draw attention to the huge regulatory burden that this legislation can potentially bring, and to the inadvertent bad consequences it will bring for many of the sites that we all depend upon and use.
I have not signed many amendments that have been tabled in this Committee because I have grown increasingly concerned, as has been said by many others, that the Bill has become a bit like the proverbial Christmas tree where everyone hangs their own specific concern on to the legislation, turning it into something increasingly unwieldy and difficult to navigate. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, put it extremely well when she effectively brought to life what it would be like to run a small website and have to comply with this legislation. That is not to say that certain elements of micro-tweaking are not welcome—for example, the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on giving coroners access to data—but we should be concerned about the scope of the Bill and the burden that it may well put on individual websites.
This is in effect the Wikipedia amendment, put forward and written in a sort of wiki way by this House—a probing amendment in Committee to explore how we can find the right balance between giving Ofcom the powers it needs to hold platforms to account and not unduly burdening websites that all of us agree present a very low risk and whose provenance, if you like, does not fit easily within the scope of the Bill.
I keep saying that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Moylan. I do not—I think he is one of the finest Members of this House—but, while it is our job to provide legislation to set the framework for how Ofcom regulates, we in this House should also recognise that in the real world, as I have also said before, this legislation is simply going to be the end of the beginning. Ofcom will have to find its way forward in how it exercises the powers that Parliament gives it, and I suspect it will have its own list of priorities in how it approaches these issues, who it decides to hold to account and who it decides to enforce against. A lot of its powers will rest not simply on the legislation that we give it but on the relationship that it builds with the platforms it is seeking to regulate.
For example, I have hosted a number of lunches for Google in this House with interested Peers, and it has been interesting to get that company’s insight into its working relationship with Ofcom. By the way, I am by no means suggesting that that is a cosy relationship, but it is at least a relationship where the two sides are talking to each other, and that is how the effectiveness of these powers will be explored.
I urge noble Lords to take these amendments seriously and take what the spirit of the amendments is seeking to put forward, which is to be mindful of the regulatory burden that the Bill imposes; to be aware that the Bill will not, simply by being passed, solve the kinds of issues that we are seeking to tackle in terms of the most egregious content that we find on the internet; and that, effectively, Ofcom’s task once this legislation is passed will be the language of priorities.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, this is not the first time in this Committee, and I suspect it will not be the last, when I rise to stand somewhere between my noble friend Lord Vaizey and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I am very taken by her focus on risk assessments and by the passionate defences of Wikipedia that we have heard, which really are grounded in a sort of commoner’s risk assessment that we can all understand.
Although I have sympathy with the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about small and medium-sized businesses being overburdened by regulation, I am less taken with the amendments on that subject precisely because small tech businesses become big tech businesses extremely quickly. It is worth pointing out that TikTok did not even exist when Parliament began debating this Bill. I wonder what our social media landscape would have been like if the Bill had existed in law before social media started. We as a country should want global tech companies to be born in the UK, but we want their founders—who, sadly, even today, are predominantly young white men who do not yet have children—to think carefully about the risks inherent in the services they are creating, and we know we need to do that at the beginning of those tech companies’ journeys, not once they have reached 1 million users a month.
While I have sympathy with the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, not to overburden, just as my noble friend Lord Vaizey has said, we should take our lead from the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron: we need a risk assessment even for small and medium-sized businesses. It just needs to be a risk assessment that is fit for their size.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. If one is permitted to say this in the digital age, I am on exactly the same page as she is.
There are two elements to the debate on this group. It is partly about compliance, and I absolutely understand the point about the costs of that, but I also take comfort from some of the things that the noble Lord. Lord Vaizey, said about the way that Ofcom is going to deliver the regulation and the very fact that this is going to be largely not a question of interpretation of the Act, when it comes down to it, but is going to be about working with the codes of practice. That will be a lot more user-friendly than simply having to go to expensive expert lawyers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said—not that I have anything against expensive expert lawyers.
I am absolutely in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that small is not safe. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, described, small can become big. We looked at this in our Joint Committee and recommended to the Government that they should take a more nuanced approach to regulation, based not just on size and high-level functionality but on factors such as risk, reach, user base, safety performance and business model. All those are extremely relevant but risk is the key, right at the beginning. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, also said that Reddit should potentially be outside, but Reddit has had its own problems, as we know. On that front, I am on absolutely the same page as those who have spoken about keeping us where we are.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has been very cunning in the way that he has drawn up his Amendment 9. I am delighted to be on the same page as my noble friend —we are making progress—but I agree only with the first half of the amendment because, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I am a financial contributor to Wikipedia. A lot of us depend on Wikipedia; we look up the ages of various Members of this House when we see them in full flight and think, “Good heavens!” Biographies are an important part of this area. We have all had Jimmy Wales saying, as soon as we get on to Wikipedia, “You’ve already looked at Wikipedia 50 times this month. Make a contribution”, and that is irresistible. There is quite a strong case there. It is risk-based so it is not inconsistent with the line taken by a number of noble Lords in all this. I very much hope that we can get something out of the Minister—maybe some sort of sympathetic noises for a change—at this stage so that we can work up something.
I must admit that the briefing from Wikimedia, which many of us have had, was quite alarming. If the Bill means that we do not have users in high-risk places then we will find that adults get their information from other sources that are not as accurate as Wikipedia —maybe from ChatGPT or GPT-4, which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is clearly very much an expert in—and that marginalised websites are shut down.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
For me, one of the features of the schedule’s list of exempted sites is foreign state entities. Therefore, we could end up in the absurd situation where you could not read about the Ukraine war on Wikipedia, but you would be able to read about the Ukraine war on the Russian Government website.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, if we needed an example of something that gave us cause for concern, that would be it; but a very good case has been made, certainly for the first half of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and we on these Benches support it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, it has certainly been an interesting debate, and I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the Committee for their contributions and considerations. I particularly thank the noble Lords who tabled the amendments which have shaped the debate today.
In general, on these Benches, we believe that the Bill offers a proportionate approach to tackling online harms. We feel that granting some of the exemptions proposed in this group would be unintentionally counterproductive and would raise some unforeseen difficulties. The key here—and it has been raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Kidron, and, just now, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who talked about the wider considerations of the Joint Committee and factors that should be taken into account—is that we endorse a risk-based approach. In this debate, it is very important that we take ourselves back to that, because that is the key.
My view is that using other factors, such as funding sources or volunteer engagement in moderation, cuts right across this risk-based approach. To refer to Amendment 4, it is absolutely the case that platforms with fewer than 1 million UK monthly users have scope to create considerable harm. Indeed, noble Lords will have seen that later amendments call for certain small platforms to be categorised on the basis of the risk—and that is the important word—that they engender, rather than the size of the platform, which, unfortunately, is something of a crude measure. The point that I want to make to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is that it is not about the size of the businesses and how they are categorised but what they actually do. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly said that small is not safe, for all the reasons that were explained, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding.
Amendment 9 would exempt small and medium-sized enterprises and certain other organisations from most of the Bill’s provisions. I am in no doubt about the well-meaning nature of this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. Indeed, there may well be an issue about how start-ups and entrepreneur unicorns cope with the regulatory framework. We should attend to that, and I am sure that the Minister will have something to say about it. But I also expect that the Minister will outline why this would actually be unhelpful in combating many of the issues that this Bill is fundamentally designed to deal with if we were to go down the road of these exclusions.
In particular, granting exemptions simply on the basis of a service’s size could lead to a situation where user numbers are capped or perhaps even where platforms are deliberately broken up to avoid regulation. This would have an effect that none of us in this Chamber would want to see because it would embed harmful content and behaviour rather than helping to reduce them.
Referring back to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, in his reflection. I, too, have not experienced the two sides of the Chamber that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, described. I feel that the Chamber has always been united on the matter of child safety and in understanding the ramifications for business. It is the case that good legislation must always seek a balance, but, to go back to the point about excluding small and medium-sized enterprises, to call them a major part of the British economy is a bit of an understatement when they account for 99.9% of the business population. In respect of the exclusion of community-based services, including Wikipedia—and we will return to this in the next group—there is nothing for platforms to fear if they have appropriate systems in place. Indeed, there are many gains to be had for community-based services such as Wikipedia from being inside the system. I look forward to the further debate that we will have on that.
I turn to Amendment 9A in the name of my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth, who is unable to participate in this section of the debate. It probes how the Bill’s measures would apply to specialised search services. Metasearch engines such as Skyscanner have expressed concern that the legislation might impose unnecessary burdens on services that pose little risk of hosting the illegal content targeted by the Bill. Perhaps the Minister, in his response, could confirm whether or not such search engines are in scope. That would perhaps be helpful to our deliberations today.
While we on these Benches are not generally supportive of exemptions, the reality is that there are a number of online search services that return content that would not ordinarily be considered harmful. Sites such as Skyscanner and Expedia, as we all know, allow people to search for and book flights and other travel services such as car hire. Obviously, as long as appropriate due diligence is carried out on partners and travel agents, the scope for users to encounter illegal or harmful material appears to be minimal and returns us to the point of having a risk-based approach. We are not necessarily advocating for a carve-out from the Bill, but it would perhaps be helpful to our deliberations if the Minister could outline how such platforms will be expected to interact with the Ofcom-run online safety regime.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sympathetic to arguments that we must avoid imposing disproportionate burdens on regulated services, but I cannot accept the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and others. Doing so would greatly reduce the strong protections that the Bill offers to internet users, particularly to children. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, that that has long been the shared focus across your Lordships’ House as we seek to strike the right balance through the Bill. I hope to reassure noble Lords about the justification for the existing balance and scope, and the safeguards built in to prevent undue burdens to business.
I will start with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley—Amendments 4, 6 to 8, 12, 288 and 305—which would significantly narrow the definition of services in scope of regulation. The current scope of the Bill reflects evidence of where harm is manifested online. There is clear evidence that smaller services can pose a significant risk of harm from illegal content, as well as to children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly echoed. Moreover, harmful content and activity often range across a number of services. While illegal content or activity may originate on larger platforms, offenders often seek to move to smaller platforms with less effective systems for tackling criminal activity in order to circumvent those protections. Exempting smaller services from regulation would likely accelerate that process, resulting in illegal content being displaced on to smaller services, putting users at risk.
These amendments would create significant new loopholes in regulation. Rather than relying on platforms and search services to identify and manage risk proactively, they would require Ofcom to monitor smaller harmful services, which would further annoy my noble friend Lord Moylan. Let me reassure the noble Baroness, however, that the Bill has been designed to avoid disproportionate or unnecessary burdens on smaller services. All duties on services are proportionate to the risk of harm and the capacity of companies. This means that small, low-risk services will have minimal duties imposed on them. Ofcom’s guidance and codes of practice will set out how they can comply with their duties, in a way that I hope is even clearer than the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, but certainly allowing for companies to have a conversation and ask for areas of clarification, if that is still needed. They will ensure that low-risk services do not have to undertake unnecessary measures if they do not pose a risk of harm to their users.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, while my noble friend is talking about the possibility of excessive and disproportionate burden on businesses, can I just ask him about the possibility of excessive and disproportionate burden on the regulator? He seems to be saying that Ofcom is going to have to maintain, and keep up to date regularly, 25,000 risk assessments—this is on the Government’s own assessment, produced 15 months ago, of the state of the market then—even if those assessments carried out by Ofcom result in very little consequence for the regulated entity.
We know from regulation in this country that regulators already cannot cope with the burdens placed on them. They become inefficient, sclerotic and unresponsive; they have difficulty in recruiting staff of the same level and skills as the entities that they regulate. We have a Financial Services and Markets Bill going through at the moment, and the FCA is a very good example of that. Do we really think that this is a sensible burden to place on a regulator that is actually able to discharge it?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Bill creates a substantial new role for Ofcom, but it has already substantially recruited and prepared for the effective carrying out of that new duty. I do not know whether my noble friend was in some of the briefings with officials from Ofcom, but it is very happy to set out directly the ways in which it is already discharging, or preparing to discharge, those duties. The Government have provided it with further resource to enable it to do so. It may be helpful for my noble friend to have some of those discussions directly with the regulator, but we are confident that it is ready to discharge its duties, as set out in the Bill.
I was about to say that we have already had a bit of discussion on Wikipedia. I am conscious that we are going to touch on it again in the debate on the next group of amendments so, at the risk of being marked down for repetition, which is a black mark on that platform, I shall not pre-empt what I will say shortly. But I emphasise that the Bill does not impose prescriptive, one-size-fits-all duties on services. The codes of practice from Ofcom will set out a range of measures that are appropriate for different types of services in scope. Companies can follow their own routes to compliance, so long as they are confident that they are effectively managing risks associated with legal content and, where relevant, harm to children. That will ensure that services that already use community moderation effectively can continue to do so—such as Wikipedia, which successfully uses that to moderate content. As I say, we will touch on that more in the debate on the next group.
Amendment 9, in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, is designed to exempt small and medium sized-enterprises working to benefit the public from the scope of the Bill. Again, I am sympathetic to the objective of ensuring that the Bill does not impose undue burdens on small businesses, and particularly that it should not inhibit services from providing valuable content of public benefit, but I do not think it would be feasible to exempt service providers deemed to be
“working to benefit the public”.
I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but the wording that my noble friend has alighted on highlights the difficulties of finding something suitably precise and not contestable. It would be challenging to identify which services should qualify for such an exemption.
Taking small services out of scope would significantly undermine the framework established by the Bill, as we know that many smaller services host illegal content and pose a threat to children. Again, let me reassure noble Lords that the Bill has been designed to avoid disproportionate or unnecessary regulatory burdens on small and low-risk services. It will not impose a disproportionate burden on services or impede users’ access to value content on smaller services.
Amendment 9A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, is designed to exempt “sector specific search services” from the scope of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, explained. Again, I am sympathetic to the intention here of ensuring that the Bill does not impose a disproportionate burden on services, but this is another amendment that is not needed as it would exempt search services that may pose a significant risk of harm to children, or because of illegal content on them. The amendment aims to exempt specialised search services—that is, those that allow users to
“search for … products or services … in a particular sector”.
It would exempt specialised search services that could cause harm to children or host illegal content—for example, pornographic search services or commercial search services that could facilitate online fraud. I know the noble Lord would not want to see that.
The regulatory duties apply only where there is a significant risk of harm and the scope has been designed to exclude low-risk search services. The duties therefore do not apply to search engines that search a single database or website, for example those of many retailers or other commercial websites. Even where a search service is in scope, the duties on services are proportionate to the risk of harm that they pose to users, as well as to a company’s size and capacity. Low-risk services, for example, will have minimal duties. Ofcom will ensure that these services can quickly and easily comply by publishing risk profiles for low-risk services, enabling them easily to understand their risk levels and, if necessary, take steps to mitigate them.
The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked some questions about the 200 most popular pornographic websites. If I may, I will respond to the questions he posed, along with others that I am sure will come in the debate on the fifth group, when we debate the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, because that will take us on to the same territory.
I hope that provides some assurance to my noble friend Lord Moylan, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and others, and that they will be willing not to press their amendments in this group.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank people for such a wide-ranging and interesting set of contributions. I take comfort from the fact that so many people understood what the amendments were trying to do, even if they did not fully succeed in that. I thought it was quite interesting that in the first debate the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, said that he might be a bit isolated on the apps, but I actually agreed with him—which might not do his reputation any good. However, when he said that, I thought, “Welcome to my world”, so I am quite pleased that this has not all been shot down in flames before we started. My amendment really was a serious attempt to tackle something that is a real problem.
The Minister says that the Bill is designed to avoid disproportionate burdens on services. All I can say is, “Sack the designer”. It is absolutely going to have a disproportionate burden on a wide range of small services, which will not be able to cope, and that is why so many of them are worried about it. Some 80% of the companies that will be caught up in this red tape are small and micro-businesses. I will come to the small business point in a moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, warned us that small tech businesses become big tech businesses. As far as I am concerned, that is a success story—it is what I want; is it not what we all want? Personally, I think economic development and growth is a positive thing—I do not want them to fail. However, I do not think it will ever happen; I do not think that small tech businesses will ever grow into big tech businesses if they face a disproportionate burden in the regulatory sense, as I have tried to describe. That is what I am worried about, and it is not a positive thing to be celebrated.
I stress that it is not small tech and big tech. There are also community sites, based on collective moderation. Wikipedia has had a lot of discussion here. For a Bill that stresses that it wants to empower users, we should think about what it means when these user-moderated community sites are telling us that they will not be able to carry on and get through. That is what they are saying. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that he relies on Wikipedia—many of us do, although please do not believe what it says about me. There are all of these things, but then there was a feeling that, well, Reddit is a bit dodgy. The Bill is not meant to be deciding which ones to trust in quite that way, or people’s tastes.
I was struck that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said that small is not safe, and used the incel example. I am not emphasising that small is safe; I am saying that the small entities will not survive this process. That is my fear. I do not mean that the big ones are nasty and dangerous and the small ones are cosy, lovely and Wikipedia-like. I am suggesting that smaller entities will not be able to survive the regulatory onslaught. That is the main reason I raised this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said that these entities can cause great harm. I am worried about a culture of fear, in which we demonise tens of thousands of innocent tech businesses and communities and end up destroying them when we do not intend to. I tried to put in the amendment an ability for Ofcom, if there are problematic sites that are risky, to deal with them. As the Minister kept saying, low-risk search engines have been exempted. I am suggesting that low-risk small and micro-businesses are exempted, which is the majority of them. That is what I am suggesting, rather than that we assume they are all guilty and then they have to get exempted.
Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked how many pornography sites are in scope and which pornographic websites have a million or fewer users. I am glad I do not know the answer to that, otherwise people might wonder why I did. The point is that there are always going to be sites that are threatening or a risk to children, as we are discussing. But we must always bear in mind—this was the important point that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made—that in our absolute determination to protect children via this Bill we do not unintendedly damage society as a whole. Adult access to free speech, for example, is one of my concerns, as are businesses and so on. We should not have that as an outcome.
Lord Moylan
“(2A) This Act does not apply in relation to moderation actions taken, or not taken, by users of a Part 3 service.”Member’s explanatory statement
The drafting of some Bill provisions, such as Clauses 17(4)(c) or 65(1), leaves room for debate as to whether community moderation gives rise to liability and obligations for the provider. This amendment, along with the other amendment to Clause 4 in the name of Lord Moylan, clarifies that moderation carried out by the public, for example on Wikipedia, is not fettered by this Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have to start with a slightly unprofessional confession. I accepted the Bill team’s suggestion on how my amendments might be grouped after I had grouped them rather differently. The result is that I am not entirely clear why some of these groupings are quite as they are. As my noble friend the Minister said, my original idea of having Amendments 9, 10 and 11 together would perhaps have been better, as it would have allowed him to give a single response on Wikipedia. Amendments 10 and 11 in this group relate to Wikipedia and services like it.
I am, I hope, going to cause the Committee some relief as I do not intend to repeat remarks made in the previous group. The extent to which my noble friend wishes to amplify his comments in response to the previous group is entirely a matter for him, since he said he was reserving matter that he would like to bring forward but did not when commenting on the previous group. If I do not speak further on Amendments 10 and 11, it is not because I am not interested in what my noble friend the Minister might have to say on the topic of Wikipedia.
To keep this fairly brief, I turn to Amendment 26 on age verification. I think we have all agreed in the Chamber that we are united in wanting to see children kept safe. On page 10 of the Bill, in Clause 11(3), it states that there will be a duty to
“prevent children of any age from encountering”
this content—“prevent” them “encountering” is extremely strong. We do not prevent children encountering the possibility of buying cigarettes or encountering the possibility of being injured crossing the road, but we are to prevent children from these encounters. It is strongly urged in the clause—it is given as an example—that age verification will be required for that purpose.
Of course, age verification works only if it applies to everybody: one does not ask just the children to prove their age; one has to ask everybody online. Unlike when I go to the bar in a pub, my grey hair cannot be seen online. So this provision will almost certainly have to extend to the entire population. In Clause 11(3)(b), we have an obligation to protect. Clearly, the Government intend a difference between “prevent” and “protect”, or they would not have used two different verbs, so can my noble friend the Minister explain what is meant by the distinction between “prevent” and “protect”?
My amendment would remove Clause 11(3) completely. But it is, in essence, a probing amendment and what I want to hear from the Government, apart from how they interpret the difference between “prevent” and “protect”, is how they expect this duty to be carried out without having astonishingly annoying and deterring features built into every user-to-user platform and website, so that every time one goes on Wikipedia—in addition to dealing with the GDPR, accepting cookies and all the other nonsense we have to go through quite pointlessly—we then have to provide age verification of some sort.
What mechanism that might be, I do not know. I am sure that there are many mechanisms available for age verification. I do not wish to get into a technical discussion about what particular techniques might be used—I accept that there will be a range and that they will respond and adapt in the light of demand and technological advance—but I would like to know what my noble friend the Minister expects and how wide he thinks the obligation will be. Will it be on the entire population, as I suspect? Focusing on that amendment—and leaving the others to my noble friend the Minister to respond to as he sees fit—and raising those questions, I think that the Committee would like to know how the Government imagine that this provision will work. I beg to move.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on moderation, which I think are more important than he has given himself credit for—they go more broadly than just Wikipedia.
There is a lot of emphasis on platform moderation, but the reality is that most moderation of online content is done by users, either individually or in groups, acting as groups in the space where they operate. The typical example, which many Members of this House have experienced, is when you post something and somebody asks, “Did you mean to post that?”, and you say, “Oh gosh, no”, and then delete it. A Member in the other place has recently experienced a rather high-profile example of that through the medium of the newspaper. On a much smaller scale, it is absolutely typical that people take down content every day, either because they regret it or, quite often, because their friends, families or communities tell them that it was unwise. That is the most effective form of moderation, because it is the way that people learn to change their behaviour online, as opposed to the experience of a platform removing content, which is often experienced as the big bad hand of the platform. The person does not learn to change their behaviour, so, in some cases, it can reinforce bad behaviour.
Community moderation, not just on Wikipedia but across the internet, is an enormous public good, and the last thing that we want to do in this legislation is to discourage people from doing it. In online spaces, that is often a volunteer activity: people give up their time to try to keep a space safe and within the guidelines they have set for that space. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has touched on a really important area: in the Bill, we must be absolutely clear to those volunteers that we will not create all kinds of new legal operations and liabilities on them. These are responsible people, so, if they are advised that they will incur all kinds of legal risk when trying to comply with the Online Safety Bill, they will stop doing the moderation—and then we will all suffer.
On age-gating, we will move to a series of amendments where we will discuss age assurance, but I will say at the outset, as a teaser to those longer debates, that I have sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. He mentioned pubs—we often talk about real-world analogies. In most of the public spaces we enter in the real world, nobody does any ID checking or age checking; we take it on trust, unless and until you carry out an action, such as buying alcohol, which requires an age check.
It is legitimate to raise this question, because where we fall in this debate will depend on how we see public spaces. I see a general-purpose social network as equivalent to walking into a pub or a town square, so I do not expect to have my age and ID checked at the point at which I enter that public space. I might accept that my ID is checked at a certain point where I carry out various actions. Others will disagree and will say that the space should be checked as soon as you go into it—that is the boundary of the debate we will have across a few groups. As a liberal, I am certainly on the side that says that it is incumbent on the person wanting to impose the extra checks to justify them. We should not just assume that extra checks are cost-free and beneficial; they have a cost for us all, and it should be imposed only where there is a reasonable justification.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Far be it for me to suggest that all the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, are in the wrong place, but I think that Amendment 26 might have been better debated with the other amendments on age assurance.
On community moderation, I underscore the point that Ofcom must have a risk profile as part of its operations. When we get to that subject, let us understand what Ofcom intends to do with it—maybe we should instruct Ofcom a little about what we would like it to do with it for community moderation. I have a lot of sympathy—but do not think it is a get-out clause—with seeing some spaces as less risky, or, at least, for determining what risky looks like in online spaces, which is a different question. This issue belongs in the risk profile: it is not about taking things out; we have to build it into the Bill we have.
On age assurance and AV, I do not think that today is the day to discuss it in full. I disagree with the point that, because we are checking kids, we have to check ourselves—that is not where the technology is. Without descending into technical arguments, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked us not to, we will bring some of those issues forward.
The noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Stevenson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford have a package of amendments which are very widely supported across the Committee. They have put forward a schedule of age assurance that says what the rules of the road are. We must stop pretending that age assurance is something that is being invented now in this Bill. If you log into a website with your Facebook login, it shares your age—and that is used by 42% of people online. However, if you use an Apple login, it does not share your age, so I recommend using Apple—but, interestingly, it is harder to find that option on websites, because websites want to know your age.
So, first, we must not treat age assurance as if it has just been invented. Secondly, we need to start to have rules of the road, and ask what is acceptable, what is proportionate, and when we will have zero tolerance. Watching faces around the Committee, I say that I will accept zero tolerance for pornography and some other major subjects, but, for the most part, age assurance is something that we need to have regulated. Currently, it is being done to us rather than in any way that is transparent or agreed, and that is very problematic.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I hesitated to speak to the previous group of amendments, but I want to speak in support of the issue of risk that my noble friend Lady Kidron raised again in this group of amendments. I do not believe that noble Lords in the Committee want to cut down the amount of information and the ability to obtain information online. Rather, we came to the Bill wanting to avoid some of the really terrible harms promoted by some websites which hook into people’s vulnerability to becoming addicted to extremely harmful behaviours, which are harmful not only to themselves but to other people and, in particular, to children, who have no voice at all. I also have a concern about vulnerable people over the age of 18, and that may be something we will come to later in our discussions on the Bill.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I violently agree with my noble friend Lord Moylan that the grouping of this amendment is unfortunate. For that reason I am not going to plunge into the issue in huge detail. but there are a couple of things I would like to reassure my noble friend on, and I have a question for the Minister.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said there is a package of amendments around age verification and that we will have a lot of time to dive into this, and I think that is probably the right format for doing it. However, I reassure my noble friend Lord Moylan that he is absolutely right. The idea is not in any way to shut off the town square from everyone simply because there might be something scary there.
Clause 11(3) refers to priority content, which the noble Lord will know is to do with child abuse and fraudulent and severely violent content. This is not just any old stuff; this is hardcore porn and the rest. As in the real world, that content should be behind an age-verification barrier. At the moment we have a situation on the internet where, because it has not been well-managed for a generation, this content has found itself everywhere: on Twitter and Reddit, and all sorts of places where really it should not be because there are children there. We envisage a degree of tidying up of social media and the internet to make sure that the dangerous content is put behind age verification. What we are not seeking to do, and what would not be a benign or positive action, is to put the entire internet behind some kind of age-verification boundary. From that point of view, I completely agree with my noble friend.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, as might be expected, I will speak against Amendment 26 and will explain why.
The children’s charity Barnardo’s—here I declare an interest as vice-president—has said, as has been said several times before, that children are coming across pornographic content from as young as seven. Often they stumble across the content accidentally, unwittingly searching for terms such as “sex” or “porn”, without knowing what they mean. The impact that this is having on children is huge. It is harming their mental health and distorting their perception of healthy sexual relationships and consent. That will go with them into adulthood.
Age verification for pornography and age assurance to protect children from other harms are crucial to protect children from this content. In the offline world, children are rightly not allowed to buy pornographic DVDs in sex shops but online they can access this content at the click of a button. This is why I will be supporting the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and am fully supportive of their age assurance and age verification schedule.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, to go back not just to the age question, the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, reminded us that community-led moderation is not just Wikipedia. What I tried to hint at earlier is that that is one of the most interesting, democratic aspects of the online world, which we should protect.
We often boast that we are a self-regulating House and that that makes us somehow somewhat superior to up the road—we are all so mature because we self-regulate; people do behave badly but we decide. It is a lesson in democracy that you have a self-regulating House, and there are parts of the online world that self-regulate. Unless we think that the citizens of the UK are less civilised than Members of the House of Lords, which I would refute, we should say that it is positive that there are self-moderating, self-regulating online sites. If you can say something and people can object and have a discussion about it, and things can be taken down, to me that is the way we should deal with speech that is inappropriate or wrong. The bulk of these amendments—I cannot remember how many there are now—are right.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said he could not understand why this grouping had happened, which is what I said earlier. I had gone through a number of groupings thinking: “What is that doing there? Am I missing something? Why is that in that place?” I think we will come back to the age verification debate and discussion.
One thing to note is that one of the reasons organisations such as Wikipedia would be concerned about age verification—and they are—is anonymity. It is something we have to consider. What is going to happen to anonymity? It is so important for journalists, civil liberty activists and whistleblowers. Many Wikipedia editors are anonymised, maybe because they are politically editing sites on controversial issues. Imagine being a Wikipedia editor from Russia at the moment—you would not want to have to say who you are. We will come back to it but it is important to understand that Amendment 26, and those who are saying that we should look at the question of age verification, are not doing so because they do not care about children and are not interested in protecting them. However, the dilemmas of any age-gating or age verification for adult civil liberties have to be considered. We have to worry that, because of an emphasis on checking age, some websites will decide to sanitise what they allow to be published to make it suitable for children, just in case they come across it. Again, that will have a detrimental impact on adult access to all knowledge.
These will be controversial issues, and we will come back to them, but it is good to have started the discussion.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very strange debate. It has been the tail end of the last session and a trailer for a much bigger debate coming down the track. It was very odd.
We do not want to see everything behind an age-gating barrier, so I agree with my noble friend. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, reminded us, it is all about the risk profile, and that then leads to the kind of risk assessment that a platform is going to be required to carry out. There is a logic to the way that the Bill is going to operate.
When you look at Clause 11(3), you see that it is not disproportionate. It deals with “primary priority content”. This is not specified in the Bill but it is self-harm and pornography—major content that needs age-gating. Of course we need to have the principles for age assurance inserted into the Bill as well, and of course it will be subject to debate as we go forward.
There is technology to carry out age verification which is far more sophisticated than it ever was, so I very much look forward to that debate. We started that process in Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. I was described as an internet villain for believing in age verification. I have not changed my view, but the debate will be very interesting. As regards the tail-end of the previous debate, of course we are sympathetic on these Benches to the Wikipedia case. As we said on the last group, I very much hope that we will find a way, whether it is in Schedule 1 or in another way, of making sure that Wikipedia is not affected overly by this—maybe the risk profile that is drawn up by Ofcom will make sure that Wikipedia is not unduly impacted.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
Like others, I had prepared quite extensive notes to respond to what I thought the noble Lord was going to say about his amendments in this group, and I have not been able to find anything left that I can use, so I am going to have to extemporise slightly. I think it is very helpful to have a little non-focused discussion about what we are about to talk about in terms of age, because there is a snare and a delusion in quite a lot of it. I was put in mind of that in the discussions on the Digital Economy Act, which of course precedes the Minister but is certainly still alive in our thinking: in fact, we were talking about it earlier today.
The problem I see is that we have to find a way of squaring two quite different approaches. One is to prevent those who should not be able to see material, because it is illegal for them to see it. The other is to find a way of ensuring that we do not end up with an age-gated internet, which I am grateful to find that we are all, I think, agreed about: that is very good to know.
Age is very tricky, as we have heard, and it is not the only consideration we have to bear in mind in wondering whether people should be able to gain access to areas of the internet which we know will be bad and difficult for them. That leads us, of course, to the question about legal but harmful, now resolved—or is it? We are going to have this debate about age assurance and what it is. What is age verification? How do they differ? How does it matter? Is 18 a fixed and final point at which we are going to say that childhood ends and adulthood begins, and therefore one is open for everything? It is exactly the point made earlier about how to care for those who should not be exposed to material which, although legal for them by a number called age, is not appropriate for them in any of the circumstances which, clinically, we might want to bring to bear.
I do not think we are going to resolve these issues today—I hope not. We are going to talk about them for ever, but at this stage I think we still need a bit of thinking outside a box which says that age is the answer to a lot of the problems we have. I do not think it is, but whether the Bill is going to carry that forward I have my doubts. How we get that to the next stage, I do not know, but I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I agree that this has been a rather unfortunate grouping and has led to a slightly strange debate. I apologise if it is the result of advice given to my noble friend. I know there has been some degrouping as well, which has led to slightly odd combinations today. However, as promised, I shall say a bit more about Wikipedia in relation to my noble friend’s Amendments 10 and 11.
The effect of these amendments would be that moderation actions carried out by users—in other words, community moderation of user-to-user and search services —would not be in scope of the Bill. The Government support the use of effective user or community moderation by services where this is appropriate for the service in question. As I said on the previous group, as demonstrated by services such as Wikipedia, this can be a valuable and effective means of moderating content and sharing information. That is why the Bill does not impose a one-size-fits-all requirement on services, but instead allows services to adopt their own approaches to compliance, so long as these are effective. The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, dwelt on this. I should be clear that duties will not be imposed on individual community moderators; the duties are on platforms to tackle illegal content and protect children. Platforms can achieve this through, among other things, centralised or community moderation. Ultimately, however, it is they who are responsible for ensuring compliance and it is platforms, not community moderators, who will face enforcement action if they fail to do so.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this slightly disjointed debate. I fully accept that there will be further opportunities to discuss age verification and related matters, so I shall say no more about that. I am grateful, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, for supplying the deficiency in my opening remarks about the importance of Amendments 10 and 11, and for explaining just how important that is too. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. It was good of him to say, in the open approach he took on the question of age, that there are issues still to be addressed. I do not think anybody feels that we have yet got this right and I think we are going to have to be very open in that discussion, when we get to it. That is also true about what the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, said: we have not yet got clarity as to where the age boundary is—I like his expression—for the public space. Where is the point at which, if checks are needed, those checks are to be applied? These are all matters to discuss and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not address each individual contribution separately.
I would like to say something, I hope not unfairly or out of scope, about what was said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Kidron, when they used, for the first time this afternoon, the phrase “zero tolerance”, and, at the same time, talked about a risk-based approach. I have, from my own local government experience, a lot of experience of risk-based approaches taken in relation to things—very different, of course, from the internet—such as food safety, where local authorities grade restaurants and food shops and take enforcement action and supervisory action according to their assessment of the risk that those premises present. That is partly to do with their assessment of the management and partly to do with their experience of things that have gone wrong in the past. If you have been found with mouse droppings and you have had to clean up the shop, then you will be examined a great deal more frequently until the enforcement officers are happy; whereas if you are always very well run, you will get an inspection visit maybe only once a year. That is what a risk-based assessment consists of. The important thing to say is that it does not produce zero tolerance or zero outcomes.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I just want to make the point that I was talking about zero tolerance at the end of a ladder of tolerance, just to be clear. Letting a seven-year-old child into an 18-plus dating app or pornographic website is where the zero tolerance is—everything else is a ladder up to that.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I beg the noble Baroness’s pardon; I took that for granted. There are certain things—access to pornography, material encouraging self-harm and things of that sort—where one has to have zero tolerance, but not everything. I am sorry I took that for granted, so I fully accept that I should have made that more explicit in my remarks. Not everything is to be zero-toleranced, so to speak, but certain things are. However, that does not mean that they will not happen. One has to accept that there will be leakage around all this, just as some of the best-run restaurants that have been managed superbly for years will turn out, on occasion, to be the source of food poisoning. One has to accept that this is never going to be as tight as some of the advocates wanted, but with that, I hope I will be given leave to withdraw—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
May I intervene, because I have also been named in the noble Lord’s response? My concern is about the most extreme, most violent, most harmful and destructive things. There are some terrible things posted online. You would not run an open meeting on how to mutilate a child, or how to stab somebody most effectively to do the most harm. It is at this extreme end that I cannot see anyone in society in the offline world promoting classes for any of these terrible activities. Therefore, there is a sense that exposure to these things is of no benefit but promotes intense harm. People who are particularly vulnerable at a formative age in their development should not be exposed to them, because they would not be exposed to them elsewhere. I am speaking personally, not for anybody else, but I stress that this is the level at which the tolerance should be set to zero because we set it to zero in the rest of our lives.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Everything the noble Baroness has said is absolutely right, and I completely agree with her. The point I simply want to make is that no form of risk-based assessment will achieve a zero-tolerance outcome, but—
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I am so sorry, but may I offer just one final thought from the health sector? While the noble Lord is right that where there are human beings there will be error, there is a concept in health of the “never event”—that when that error occurs, we should not tolerate it, and we should expect the people involved in creating that error to do a deep inspection and review to understand how it occurred, because it is considered intolerable. I think the same exists in the digital world in a risk assessment framework, and it would be a mistake to ignore it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am now going to attempt for the third time to beg the House’s leave to withdraw my amendment. I hope for the sake of us all, our dinner and the dinner break business, for which I see people assembling, that I will be granted that leave.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the Minister’s name to clause 9 below (because the new duty to summarise illegal content risk assessments in the terms of service is only imposed on providers of Category 1 services).
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this group of government amendments relates to risk assessments; it may be helpful if I speak to them now as the final group before the dinner break.
Risk management is at the heart of the Bill’s regulatory framework. Ofcom and services’ risk assessments will form the foundation for protecting users from illegal content and content which is harmful to children. They will ensure that providers thoroughly identify the risks on their own websites, enabling them to manage and mitigate the potential harms arising from them. Ofcom will set out the risks across the sector and issue guidance to companies on how to conduct their assessments effectively. All providers will be required to carry out risk assessments, keep them up-to-date and update them before making a significant change to the design or operation of their service which could put their users at risk. Providers will then need to put in place measures to manage and mitigate the risks they identify in their risk assessments, including any emerging risks.
Given how crucial the risk assessments are to this framework, it is essential that we enable them to be properly scrutinised by the public. The government amendments in this group will place new duties on providers of the largest services—that is, category 1 and 2A services—to publish summaries of their illegal and child safety risk assessments. Through these amendments, providers of these services will also have a new duty to send full records of their risk assessments to Ofcom. This will increase transparency about the risk of harm on the largest platforms, clearly showing how risk is affected by factors such as the design, user base or functionality of their services. These amendments will further ensure that the risk assessments can be properly assessed by internet users, including by children and their parents and guardians, by ensuring that summaries of the assessments are publicly available. This will empower users to make informed decisions when choosing whether and how to use these services.
It is also important that Ofcom is fully appraised of the risks identified by service providers. That is why these amendments introduce duties for both category 1 and 2A services to send their records of these risk assessments, in full, to Ofcom. This will make it easier for Ofcom to supervise compliance with the risk assessment duties, as well as other duties linked to the findings of the risk assessments, rather than having to request the assessments from companies under its information-gathering powers.
These amendments also clarify that companies must keep a record of all aspects of their risk assessments, which strengthens the existing record-keeping duties on services. I hope that noble Lords will welcome these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, it is risky to stand between people and their dinner, but I rise very briefly to welcome these amendments. We should celebrate the good stuff that happens in Committee as well as the challenging stuff. The risk assessments are, I think, the single most positive part of this legislation. Online platforms already do a lot of work trying to understand what risks are taking place on their platforms, which never sees the light of day except when it is leaked by a whistleblower and we then have a very imperfect debate around it.
The fact that platforms will have to do a formal risk assessment and share it with a third-party regulator is huge progress; it will create a very positive dynamic. The fact that the public will be able to see those risk assessments and make their own judgments about which services to use—according to how well they have done them—is, again, a massive public benefit. We should welcome the fact that risk assessments are there and the improvements that this group of amendments makes to them. I hope that was short enough.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I also welcome these amendments, but I have two very brief questions for the Minister. First, in Amendment 27A, it seems that the child risk assessment is limited only to category 1 services and will be published only in the terms of service. As he probably knows, 98% of people do not read terms of service, so I wondered where else we might find this, or whether there is a better way of dealing with it.
My second question is to do with Amendments 64A and 88A. It seems to me—forgive me if I am wrong—that the Bill previously stipulated that all regulated search and user services had to make and keep a written record of any measure taken in compliance with a relevant duty, but now it seems to have rowed back to only category 1 and 2A services. I may be wrong on that, but I would like to check it for the record.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, put her finger exactly on the two questions that I wanted to ask: namely, why only category 1 and category 2A, and is there some rowing back involved here? Of course, none of this prejudices the fact that, when we come later in Committee to talk about widening the ambit of risk assessments to material other than that which is specified in the Bill, this kind of transparency would be extremely useful. But the rationale for why it is only category 1 and category 2A in particular would be very useful to hear.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this group, and we certainly welcome this tranche of government amendments. We know that there are more to come both in Committee and as we proceed to Report, and we look forward to seeing them.
The amendments in this group, as other noble Lords have said, amount to a very sensible series of changes to services’ risk-assessment duties. This perhaps begs the question of why they were not included in earlier drafts of the Bill, but we are glad to see them now.
There is, of course, the issue of precisely where some of the information will appear, as well as the wider status of terms of service. I am sure those issues will be discussed in later debates. It is certainly welcome that the department is introducing stronger requirements around the information that must be made available to users; it will all help to make this a stronger and more practical Bill.
We all know that users need to be able to make informed decisions, and it will not be possible if they are required to view multiple statements and various documents. It seems that the requirements for information to be provided to Ofcom go to the very heart of the Bill, and I suggest that the proposed system will work best if there is trust and transparency between the regulator and those who are regulated. I am sure that there will be further debate on the scope of risk assessments, particularly on issues that were dropped from previous iterations of the Bill, and certainly this is a reasonable starting point today.
I will try to be as swift as possible as I raise a few key issues. One is about avoiding warnings that are at such a high level of generality that they get put on to everything. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how Ofcom will ensure that the summaries are useful and accessible to the reader. The test, of course, should be that a summary is suitable and sufficient for a prospective user to form an assessment of the likely risk they would encounter when using the service, taking into account any special vulnerabilities that they might have. That needs to be the test; perhaps the Minister could confirm that.
Is the terms of service section the correct place to put a summary of the illegal content risk assessment? Research suggests, unsurprisingly, that only 3% of people read terms before signing up—although I recall that, in an earlier debate, the Minister confessed that he had read all the terms and conditions of his mobile phone contract, so he may be one of the 3%. It is without doubt that any individual should be supported in their ability to make choices, and the duty should perhaps instead be to display a summary of the risks with due prominence, to ensure that anyone who is considering signing up to a service is really able to read it.
I also ask the Minister to confirm that, despite the changes to Clause 19 in Amendment 16B, the duty to keep records of risk assessments will continue to apply to all companies, but with an enhanced responsibility for category 1 companies.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their questions on this, and particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for their chorus of welcome. Where we are able to make changes, we will of course bring them forward, and I am glad to be able to bring forward this tranche now.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said, ensuring the transparency of services’ risk assessments will further ensure that the framework of the Bill delivers its core objectives relating to effective risk management and increased accountability regarding regulated services. As we have discussed, it is imperative that these providers take a thorough approach to identifying risks, including emerging risks. The Government believe that it is of the utmost importance that the public are able effectively to scrutinise the risk assessments of the largest in-scope services, so that users can be empowered to make informed decisions about whether and how to use their services.
On the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about why it is just category 1 and category 2A services, we estimate that there will be around 25,000 UK service providers in scope of the Bill’s illegal and child safety duties. Requiring all these companies to publish full risk assessments and proactively to send them to Ofcom could undermine the Bill’s risk-based and proportionate approach, as we have discussed in previous groups on the burdens to business. A large number of these companies are likely to be low risk and it is unlikely that many people will seek out their risk assessments, so requiring all companies to publish them would be an excessive regulatory burden.
There would also be an expectation that Ofcom would proactively monitor a whole range of services, even ones that posed a minimal risk to users. That in turn could distract Ofcom from taking a risk-based approach in its regulation by overwhelming it with paperwork from thousands of low-risk services. If Ofcom wants to see records of the risk assessments of providers that are not category 1 or category 2A services, it has extensive information-gathering powers that it can use to require a provider to send it such records.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, was right to say that I read the terms of my broadband supply—I plead guilty to the nerdiness of doing that—but I have not read all the terms and conditions of every application and social medium I have downloaded, and I agree that many people do skim through them. They say the most commonly told lie on the planet at the moment is “I agree to the terms and conditions”, and the noble Baroness is right to point to the need for these to be intelligible, easily accessible and transparent—which of course we want to see.
In answer to her other question, the record-keeping duty will apply to all companies, but the requirement to publish is only for category 1 and category 2A companies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked me about Amendment 27A. If she will permit me, I will write to her with the best and fullest answer to that question.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their questions on this group of amendments.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the Minister’s name to clause 19 below (because the new duty to supply records of risk assessments to OFCOM is only imposed on providers of Category 1 services).
Parliamentary Democracy in the United Kingdom
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the strength of parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am delighted to see so many noble Lords keen to talk about parliamentary democracy; it is absolutely wonderful. I hope I will not shock them too much when I say that we do not really have democracy in this country any more. I extend a welcome to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, who I think I met in a former existence. It is good to see him here. I hope he will have more than two minutes to make his maiden speech.
I am going to argue that we have a failing democracy. It is exemplified by an Executive who are taking on the powers of Parliament to make, delete and even change laws. It is a power grab that will undoubtedly backfire when Labour comes into government. At the moment, we are seeing a Bill go through—the strikes Bill, which we will debate on Report tomorrow—that is hyper-skeletal and gives sweeping powers to the Minister. I find that quite shocking. In 1929, Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice, warned of the Executive taking on oppressive power through the use of delegated legislation
“to subordinate Parliament, to evade the Courts, and to render the will, or the caprice, of the Executive unfettered and supreme”.
A few years later, we saw what that led to in 1930s Germany as a party gained power in an election and then destroyed all the democratic and social institutions that held it in check. We saw a ruling party—a populist party—stir up hatred of foreigners and minorities in a cynical but successful attempt to gain and keep power by fomenting divisions. A security expert recently highlighted the blacklisting from government events by the Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, of any experts on any subject if they are critical of the Government. This country has proud, wonderful traditions of freedom and fairness but I am afraid that, as he so often is, Gary Lineker is right: we are on a downward track.
The local elections are important for local democracy but, this time round, they are absolutely vital for our national democracy as well. They give electors a chance to warn a corrupt, far-right Government that they have gone too far; their undemocratic will asserting itself is a disaster for Britain. That same Government are using voter ID to suppress the vote, with older people like us able to use our railcard as ID but not younger people. If there is chaos at the local elections, with thousands of voters turned away or long queues putting others off of voting, that will make many question the validity of the results.
Such voter suppression is common in America; it is definitely an import from there. It is used regularly to gerrymander results by those in power who want to stay in power for ever. If there is chaos, delays or dips in turnout at these local elections, the Government will have two choices. They can be honourable and abandon voter ID before the general election, or they can risk destroying what is left of our democratic system. I should say that I will not let the Labour Party off the hook when it becomes the Government, either.
We need proportional representation. We need an elected second Chamber and we need to stop money controlling government policy. The Australians realised that, to save their democracy, they needed an anti-corruption commission; we should do exactly the same. The PPE fast-track contracts? Investigate. The millions of pounds in donations from the fossil fuel industry? Investigate. The ministerial meetings with United States healthcare providers? Investigate. I have not got time to list all the scandals, dodgy deals and Tufton Street connections that would be the bread and butter of any corruption commission. It would take years to go through all of them—I hope that, ultimately, the offenders will go to prison—but it might make MPs think more about their constituents and less about their bank accounts.
Proportional representation could be the foundation of a renewed democracy. It is what the public support in opinion polls and it is what the Labour membership supports at its conference. Please do not talk about first past the post leading to strong and stable government. That is absolute nonsense—we have had three Prime Ministers in the past three years. The problem is that we have had 13 years of the same party in government, which has created a climate where corruption and sleaze are rife. There is no stability or strength when a ruling party with a massive majority has a permanent crisis of allegations involving bullying, sex scandals, cash for questions, PPE contracts and the drawn-out saga of partygate. We now have high interest rates, high food prices and high energy prices. The only thing that is not going up is wages.
I agree with my Labour colleagues that any democracy that works will punish such failure and result in a change of government at the next election, but I would also argue that no healthy democracy would have allowed this messy mix of incompetence and far-right ideology to have dragged us into such an economic and moral sewer. No healthy democracy would allow privatised water companies to give shareholders £52 billion over recent decades while allowing sewage to be pumped into our rivers and coastal waters on an industrial scale; of course, only this afternoon, the other place again voted to allow this to continue. No healthy democracy would allow billions in fraud to be written off with a shrug of the shoulders, which is basically what has happened here. No healthy democracy would allow 13 years of food banks and child poverty to become normal, while the number of billionaires has more than trebled.
A change of party in a failing democracy will not do what we hope it will do. I do not want ever to live through another period of double austerity, social division and environmental damage. I do not for one moment claim that proportional representation is the solution to all our problems, but it might at least allow solutions to emerge.
Finally, I want to run through what I see as the real problems with our democracy at the moment. A democracy is failing when those who support the opposition are discouraged from voting; when protests that are noisy and get noticed get banned; when strikes are also banned; when police spies have legal immunity when infiltrating campaign groups; when the people who oversee the running of elections lose their independence; when international law and treaty commitments are disregarded; when human rights protections and the courts’ ability to question the Executive’s decisions are diluted; when lawyers and judges are declared the enemy within; when corruption is rife and legitimised; when there is one rule for those partying at the top and another rule for us at the bottom; when money buys access, which gets you the contracts, licences and regulations you desire; and when the national broadcaster is run by friends of the ruling party and the independent media is mostly owned by foreign billionaires. This is not a democracy. This is not a country we can be proud of any more. Our traditions have been scrapped, and this Government are responsible for that. I would argue that, at the moment, the strength of parliamentary democracy in the UK is absolutely zero.
Let me say also that I find it offensive when noble Lords opposite sit and chat while I am speaking; it is unnecessary for them to giggle from the Back Benches when they disagree with me. Be brave: stand up and say something in the debate.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, may I politely remind the House that the speaking limit for this debate is two minutes? We have one hour and we must accommodate both the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield’s maiden speech and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, afterwards. I ask speakers to adhere to two minutes, please.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for giving us an opportunity to speak on this important subject, even if I do not, I am afraid, recognise her bleak and at times rather fantastic and comic picture of what is going on in this country at the moment. I also look forward to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield’s maiden speech.
In the short time I have, I want to take a step back. As a concept, modern parliamentary democracy is linked to the concept of the nation state. They rose together. We saw the growth of democracies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, then again after 1990 as peoples found their independence and wanted to give it institutional form. So, although plenty of nation states are not democracies, there are, I think, no democracies that are not also nation states. That is not surprising. The nation state allows for the creation of a common demos, common loyalties and the readiness to settle political differences within an agreed set of rules.
It follows from this that, when the nation state weakens, confidence in democracy weakens. That is just what we saw in this country over the past nearly 50 years during our membership of the EU. Then, we were in practice only a limited democracy. Fewer and fewer issues could be settled in national elections. Policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries, the environment, employment, social issues, migration and citizens’ rights could be changed only by agreement in Brussels, whatever our national electorate said.
It is no wonder that people switched off and stopped believing that voting could change everything. Luckily, we have now escaped that, or at least, 95% of us have escaped that, since the Windsor Framework unfortunately preserves some of these weaknesses—I hope not for too long. Overall, we have brought politics back home. We have revived political life. We can debate and change everything again in this country. Of course, many people clearly are uncomfortable with that, and it sounds like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, may be one of them. They call it populism when a democracy reflects citizens’ actual views but for me, it is a strength. Our democracy is healing. Politics is coming back to life.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, after 44 years in Westminster, do I believe that UK parliamentary democracy has been strengthened? On the contrary: I believe it has been weakened. What is my measure? General election turnouts, which are a good measure of confidence. The turnout was 77% in 1992 and 67% in the last election. Why the 10% decline?
There are two explanations: the conduct of a few in Westminster’s political class; and the internet, which has hugely increased transparency across the political divide. What has it revealed? First, a breakdown in our criminal justice system, with escalating street and online crime, to which the Government’s response is just more cuts. Secondly, the shift in policy towards the personal funding of hitherto public service provision, breeding inequality while penalising the poor. Thirdly, the state’s ruthless indifference to the scandal of housing policy, which through managed scarcity enriches property owners and exploits those who rent. Finally, government indifference to the income greed of a few, whose settlements insult the intelligence of a hard-working majority living in the real world of deprivation and struggling to survive.
It is against that background that the public increasingly shun the polling booth. I predict that when the scandalous gerrymandering of the electoral system through individual registration is fully exposed, there will be an angry outcry from an alienated, disfranchised public.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, it is not without irony when this Chamber discusses our democracy. Many people recognise that we often do a very good job here, a much better job than the Commons, of scrutinising legislation. There, MPs are hardly given the time to look at most of it. A second Chamber is therefore needed. However, when we ask MPs to think again, our carefully considered views are too often ignored by government and the overpowerful executive branch imposes its will on MPs.
The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 promised that we would move from membership here being based on the hereditary principle to the popular principle. We are still waiting for that reform 112 years later, although the coalition Government made a brave attempt at it, winning support from MPs by a majority of 462 to 124 for the Second Reading of a Bill which, if enacted, would by now have meant at least two rounds of elections for Members of this place. This failure came despite commitment to reform having been included in all three main UK parties’ manifestos at the previous general election.
As the parties now prepare their next manifestos, I hope they will pledge to stop the process of electing more hereditary peers, make the recommendations of the House of Lords Appointments Commission binding and spell out their proposals for proper reform here. The House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 would not be a bad start. The manifestos should also include proposals to ensure that we have an electoral system which means that when people vote in a general election, they get the MPs they vote for. Just 43% of those who voted in 2019 gave the Conservative Party an 80-seat majority. A more representative Parliament would have prevented much of what has gone wrong since then.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in 2019 I thought that our parliamentary democracy was doomed. The majority in each House of Parliament seem resolved to frustrate the will of the British people as expressed in the Brexit referendum. Both Houses found devious ways to undermine the Executive and sought to impede our exit from the EU. It was a very unhappy experience.
All of this was exacerbated by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, itself an unhappy reminder that coalition Governments breed bad legislation. Parliament eventually remembered that the people are the most important part of any democratic system. It allowed a general election, and the great British electorate told us what they thought. They elected my party with a majority to get Brexit done, and we did it. We then expunged the Fixed-term Parliaments Act from the statute book. Parliamentary democracy has been rescued.
That does not mean that there are no problems, but they are not the ones analysed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Two minutes does not allow me to critique the noble Baroness’s speech or to list the challenges that I see, so I shall conclude my remarks with just one observation. Your Lordships’ House is well on the way to reinventing itself as a House of opposition to the elected Government. We may become the weak link in our parliamentary democracy, and that will not end well for your Lordships’ House.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I shall focus on trust. Public trust in government is low and getting lower. The survey evidence is that the distrust is not in the institutional structures but in the people who inhabit those structures. A survey by Ipsos MORI in February found that lack of faith in politics, politicians and Governments ranked fourth in response to the question, “What do you see as the most important issue facing Britain?” A survey last summer by YouGov found that when offered a list of 18 options in response to the question, “How much better or worse would democracy in the UK work if …”, the most popular option for working better was if politicians spoke more honestly. A total of 81% answered that it would work a lot or a bit better. Constitutional change in the form of structures and processes came in notably lower, all figuring in the latter half of the list. Fewer than 50% of respondents thought that democracy would work better if the House of Lords was replaced by an elected Chamber. The problem is not structures; it is behaviour.
I make one other related point following the resignation of Dominic Raab. The coverage of it misses the point that the conduct involved was a symptom of a systemic problem with government. In September 2021 I initiated a debate in your Lordships’ House on the need for Ministers and senior civil servants to be trained in core leadership skills. Until there is such training, there will continue to be problems with the capacity of Ministers and officials to deliver good government. Does my noble friend the Minister, who took part in that debate, not agree?
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords, I am proud of this country’s parliamentary democracy. We only have to look a few hours’ flight away from London to find countries such as Russia and Belarus that are denied the rights and freedoms we have, which stemmed from the historic signing of Magna Carta over 800 years ago. Over the years our parliamentary democracy has developed in a powerful way, and individual communities have been able to make their voices heard. Causes that were once seen as niche interests are now settled public policy, because of Back-Benchers sent to Parliament by our democratic systems.
I will give two examples. The campaigner William Wilberforce was laughed at and mocked, at first, before he succeeded in bringing about the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. In more recent times, the securing of equal rights and equal marriage was once a lonely fight confined to a group of fringe MPs, but it is now seen as a basic human right. These different cases both show the power of our parliamentary democracy in providing a platform to campaign about, debate and force social and political change.
However, to continue to strengthen our parliamentary democracy, it is beholden on all our political parties to do two things. First, they must increase engagement with young people to show them that there is a role for them to play in our democracy, make politics relevant to them and dispel apathy. Secondly, they must encourage and nurture talent from every corner and community of the UK, making it easier for those with the ability but who lack the encouragement to enter politics. Much progress has been made over the years, but there is much more that we must do.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this timely debate, notwithstanding the hyperbole of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It gives us the opportunity to put forward some practical alternatives.
We have much to learn from the United States. Woodrow Wilson said:
“Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of administration”.
We could take a leaf out of the book of the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the US House of Representatives, with its subpoena powers, substantial administrative heft and sector expertise. Speaker Bercow’s 2010 reforms in the other place made some much-needed progress on the Select Committee model that had existed since 1979, but it is still work in progress. A powerful robust ways and means committee would certainly add to the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight.
HM Treasury is too powerful and stifles innovation and independent thinking across departments. Surely the Northcote-Trevelyan paradigm from the mid-1800s is defunct, as we have seen in the recent contentious cases of Dominic Raab and Sue Gray. The case for a permanent Civil Service is receding and is less compelling than it has ever been. As a former special adviser, I would argue more generally that the bureaucratic impasse of write-rounds and public consultation is inimical to expeditious legislation and governance.
I believe in the bicameral model of Parliament, but this House also needs reform. We need to look at the size of the House and at those who do not regularly attend, and we need to look at the role of the Bishops in this place—notwithstanding the position of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, who is about to make his maiden speech.
Finally, the judiciary too cannot be immune from the imperative for openness and transparency. Self-selection and lack of transparency reduce accountability and public trust. We need confirmation hearings for senior departmental, executive and judicial appointments across both Houses, via a Joint Committee. This should be debated soon. In short, there is much work to do.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we seem to have gone out of sequence, so my noble friend Lord Hannan will now speak where my noble friend Lord Jackson would have spoken.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
Well, that ruined my opening line, which was going to be to congratulate the Member who had just spoken before me with “It’s a pleasure to disagree”, but never mind. It is customary to congratulate the Member who secured the debate, but I really want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who has performed a very useful service to the House as a whole.
I look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate. This is an interesting debate in which to give a maiden speech. When I saw this debate on the Order Paper, I thought three things. First, I thought, “What a good debate to have”. I think the House should have debates like this, from time to time, to take the temperature of things and assess where we are.
Secondly, I thought that this debate would attract so many speakers that we would have hardly any time to say anything, which has proved to be the case. I am afraid that this is what might be called a soundbite debate and I am sorry about that; we need more time.
Thirdly, I thought about how we are having this debate in the run-up to the Coronation, which is a rare event when attention naturally falls upon the monarch. It is a timely moment to remind ourselves that we are indeed supposed to be a parliamentary democracy. But what does that mean? Historically, it means that powers that have for centuries been exercised by the monarch are now exercised by the Prime Minister, but how accountable is she or he for that? I hope I will be forgiven if I upset any Members opposite but we have seen, for example, the exercise of what one might call the normal power of Prorogation as a highly political act of some consequence.
Then there are defects in the legislative process: there are too many skeleton Bills, which can reduce Parliament to a rubber stamp, and too many mega-Bills, such as the enormous Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Everyone knows that this House deals with legislation more successfully than the other place. There are balance of power Bills, which, I would argue, restrict and change the individual right of citizens. Of course, we sit far longer than the other place. There is also the question of the future of the Chamber. The light is already flashing. It is no secret that the Opposition have a plan for this House after the next election, but we will have to see what that is.
I end by saying that I know what the Minister is going to say. I rather wish that we could have a debate when she speaks first and then we comment on what the Government have said. Although this is a very short debate and I am about to sit down, I venture to suggest that today’s Hansard may be a slim volume, but it would be worth having.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, one can say very little in two minutes, so I will concentrate on one subject. I spent a long time in another legislature in another country. One of the conclusions that I drew 30 years ago, which is still with me, is that our electoral system is fundamentally unfair. You cannot talk about parliamentary democracy when you deny large numbers of people representation in Parliament. For many years, I have been a strong supporter of PR. When one talks about strong government, one should think also about stable government; the German, Swedish and Dutch systems have brought forward very sound Governments.
I think the Labour Party—as many in it probably think—would be far better off if Jeremy Corbyn was in an ultra-left party, as exists in most European countries. The House of Commons would be much stronger if the Green Party had a representation that came somewhere near its votes. I also think that Nigel Farage clearly has a following that is worthy of representation. You cannot talk about the strength of parliamentary democracy when you deny so many people a vote and a say in the way that the country is governed. I have believed that for many years and still believe it now.
There is a myth about strong government. We have a strong Government now, but look at some of the things that they have done. I am unhappy with them and I am on their side. God knows what other people think about them. I ask that we give serious consideration to electoral reform as the basis of a strong parliamentary democracy.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield. He brings to an implausible nine the number of alumni of Oriel College, Oxford. I say “implausible” because, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, will agree, it was a rather philistine place, yet it is punching rather above its weight at this end.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for broadening and enlivening the breadth and nature of our debates. She knows how fond I am of her and how fond my children are of her delicious homemade jam. I agree with much of what she said about the overmighty Executive. I do not dissent from that by one iota, but I urge her not to catastrophise and to be careful about the language that we use in this legislature. If you have disagreements with this Government, it does not follow that they are a moral sewer comparable to 1930s Germany. Using language of that kind can imperil the very democracy which we are debating, because democracy depends on a measure of self-restraint. It depends on losers being prepared to accept the outcome and on winners being prepared not to take a winner-takes-all attitude. Above all, democracy depends on treating the other side as opponents rather than enemies and accepting that people with whom we disagree might still have one or two useful things to tell us. We have to give a lead.
Let me give the example of how quickly we descend to cancel culture and destroy people over one slip or one clumsy phrase. I will aim this more at people on these Benches. Thinking of cases such as Rupa Huq’s unfortunate comments about Kwasi Kwarteng, Gary Lineker on 1930s Germany or, most recently, Diane Abbott’s asinine remarks about whether Jews could suffer from racism, I ask, without defending any of those things: is it not better to live in a world where we have second chances, where there is the possibility of atonement and forgiveness?
“Use every man according to his desert and who should ‘scape whipping?”
If your Lordships’ response is that the other side started it: maybe so. But me? I am more interested in ending it.
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for securing this debate. It is a pleasure to follow my old noble friend Lord Hannan and precede the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield. Having witnessed at first hand his practical commitment to democracy in the way he chairs the Council of Christians and Jews, I have no doubt that his contributions will strengthen your Lordships’ House.
We all know that democracy is not perfect, but it is the best imperfection we have as a bulwark against the wave of totalitarianism once again destabilising the world and causing chaos, as the current situation in Sudan demonstrates. Closer to home, I hope that when making an assessment of the strength of parliamentary democracy, my noble friend the Minister will consider how inclusive and representative our Parliament is of the diversity of the UK population, particularly with regard to the more than 14 million who have a disability. I commend my noble friend the Minister on her personal commitment to getting more disabled people into public appointments.
With little more than 1% of your Lordships’ House having long-term lived experience of disability, I suggest that all party leaders need to follow the Minister’s example and commit to addressing this damaging deficit of lived experience by sending, on merit, more disabled people to this House. I hope this call is something that all noble Lords can support as an opportunity for us to own reform of your Lordships’ House and so strengthen the vital contribution we make to robust and rigorous parliamentary scrutiny and debate.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this House for the first time. I promise that I will be brief. I thank all noble Lords for their warm welcome and all the parliamentary staff and officers for their kindness and patience in explaining to me the procedures, traditions and geography of this extraordinary place.
Throughout my ministry I have had the joy of living and working in places of cheerful diversity—in Leicester, in south London and now in the West Midlands—and it is in the context of a diverse society that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has rightly asked this Question about the strength of our parliamentary democracy.
In 2010 the late Pope, His Holiness Benedict XVI, spoke about parliamentary democracy in an address here in Westminster. He pointed out that democracy is a process rather than a value in itself—a process whose vitality depends on its being open to people who are guided by the values and commitments that inform their conscience. He asked the question,
“where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found?”.
We might all answer that question in different ways, but we can all recognise its importance for the strength of our democracy. For many of us, the answer to the Pope’s question will be found in the faiths and beliefs we hold dear. Our parliamentary democracy has grown out of deep roots in the Christian tradition, as we are reminded at the start of every sitting in this Chamber, when we begin our business with prayer.
For our democracy to remain strong, we must recognise that many people, individuals and communities alike, are motivated by values that are given them by their faith or belief; that they need assurance that their freedom to practise and express their faith or belief is not under threat; and that differences between and within faiths in our society are not a problem or cause of anxiety. To these principles the Church of England is resolutely committed. Church of England parishes cover the whole nation of England, and our clergy and people often find themselves building strong friendships with people of different faiths in their neighbourhoods.
In my own diocese, for example, we have churches twinned with mosques in Walsall and Wolverhampton. During the pandemic, leaders of different faiths came together for online programmes to combat vaccine hesitancy. Over the last winter, people of all faiths and none have together been organising warm spaces and places of welcome. Examples like these could be multiplied across the country; faith or belief gives people values to motivate their civic involvement, and that strengthens our democracy.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, reminded us, in 10 days our King will be crowned in a joyful service that will both be deeply Christian and deeply honour people of different faiths. In a speech soon after his accession, the King said:
“The beliefs that flourish in, and contribute to, our richly diverse society differ. They, and our society, can only thrive through a clear collective commitment to those vital principles of freedom of conscience, generosity of spirit and care for others which are, to me, the essence of our nationhood”.
Such a commitment in our diverse society can only strengthen our parliamentary democracy.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am very happy to welcome the right reverend Prelate to this House. He comes from an interesting background. Apart from being a priest in the south of England, Leicester and Staffordshire, he has also worked in Japan. He was involved in setting up the national Christian Muslim Forum and now chairs the Council of Christians and Jews. I gather he is also one of the Church of England’s team of bishops for prisons. That is a good range of expertise from which to speak with authority in this House. We look forward to that, and to him, as with his colleagues, bringing his diocesan perspective to this sometimes rather overly metropolitan House.
Anyone who has read Anthony Seldon’s account of the Johnson Government in the Times in recent days must doubt whether parliamentary democracy has been saved or strengthened since 2019. We should all be worried by the quality of democratic government in the UK and the damage that has been done to its conventions. The events in Washington two years ago have shown how delicate commitment to constitutional democracy can be.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I worry about the depth of public disillusion in the UK about democratic politics, above all about Westminster and how it operates. I worry even more about the depth of disillusion among the young, few of whom now vote, let alone join political parties, and turn to the streets instead to campaign.
I worry about ministerial attacks on the rule of law—that essential part of democracy. I worry about the colonisation of the Conservative Party by US Republicans, national conservatives and Christian nationalists, with their well-funded organisations, dragging the Conservatives towards an illiberal authoritarianism. I worry that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has become more of a national conservative than a Conservative, although I am happy that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, seems to have resisted some of that tendency.
I worry about the creeping spread of conspiracy theories, which inspire and energise anti-democratic fantasists, of allegations about a hidden deep state or a controlling liberal elite. I worry about the willingness of our right-wing media to help spread such theories. I worry about the fringe of right-wing extremists, fired up by social media, who talk about violence, some of whom, sadly, have gone on to kill politicians.
I worry about what would happen if we had a change of Government who then failed to change the way British politics works, leaving at the following election the only effective alternative: a Conservative Party that had drifted further to the right. None of us should be complacent about the strength of our constitution or democracy. We need more than a change of Government; we need a change of political culture and structure.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for bringing forward this brief but fascinating debate, and congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield on his excellent speech. I offer him our warmest welcome to the House.
One of Parliament’s greatest strengths has always been its evolution and ability to adapt. Given the recent decline of faith in politics that we have heard about, now more than ever we need to consider how our democracy can be reformed.
Britain is one of the most centralised states in Europe. That is one of the reasons why Labour has committed to undertake a rebalancing of power, providing a framework and process for economic devolution to towns and cities across England. However, we also recognise the need for a new constitutional settlement here in Westminster, including guarantees over the autonomy of local government, clarification over what citizens can expect from their Government, and a commitment to tackle geographic economic inequalities.
Given recent events, it is important that Westminster reflects on how trust and integrity can be restored. We need powers to clamp down on inappropriate outside earnings for MPs, and to look at how to eliminate foreign and corrupt money from UK politics. As we have heard, it is also important to consider how this Chamber can be more efficient and effective by exploring how the size of the House can be reduced while retaining what works best, because often we work very well.
The UCL Constitution Unit’s third report on democracy said that most people
“wanted a stronger parliament and thought ministers should not be able to change the law without full parliamentary scrutiny”.
We have seen a move in the opposite direction. The one thing I ask the Minister to take from this debate is to take that back to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has secured this important and extremely wide-ranging debate. We should spend more time debating these important issues.
I start by congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield on his excellent maiden speech. Lichfield is actually one of my favourite cathedrals, so he is most welcome; may he continue to make insightful contributions to the House. I was particularly glad that he reminded us of the Christian tradition of parliamentary democracy, and of the importance of freedom to practise different faiths.
Turning to the question of the day, my assessment is that, overall, UK parliamentary democracy is in a good state. Of course, like everything else political, it—UK parliamentary democracy—is a human construct, hence failures of one sort or another occur from time to time, and some have been mentioned, but the overall verdict should be a favourable one. I do not agree with the noble Baroness; like my noble friend Lord Hannan, I feel she should be careful about trying to draw parallels with 1930s Germany.
How has the situation that we are in come about? I am tempted to speculate that there may be some intrinsic virtue in the British character but my sober conclusion is that we have benefited from the virtues of evolution as opposed to adopting the follies of revolution as is sometimes espoused elsewhere—advocates of which are not unknown even within these hallowed walls. To sum things up I would like to quote Winston Churchill, who once said that:
“democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/1947; col. 207.]
Given that position, the need is to protect what we have that is good, to strive to improve it where possible and to adapt to circumstances.
There are, of course, other democratic nations, some of which are, like us, parliamentary democracies, although some are not. All truly democratic nations promote the principles of free and fair elections, the rule of law, a free press and the role of civil society. Autocracies are normally opposed to all these values that we hold so dear—and what a tragic mess that can lead to, as we see in Russia today.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has rightly mentioned the important role of elections in a functioning democracy, although I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, or my noble friend Lord Balfe that proportional representation would be better. Moreover, this Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to continue to support the first past the post voting system. We believe that this system is robust, secure and well understood by voters, providing strong and clear accountability.
My noble friend Lady Noakes was on great form. She was right to welcome an election that allowed us to get Brexit done—because that was the will of the people, despite strongly held views in many quarters, including in many parts of this House, on all sides. She is right to warn that the House should not become a House of opposition to an elected Government. This House is a very important part of the constitution.
My noble friend Lady Noakes also mentioned the recent repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I believe that, by returning to the status quo ante, a Prime Minister will once again be able to call an election at a time of their choosing and avoid the parliamentary gridlock that caused so much trouble during the Brexit process.
As many have said, Members of Parliament as elected representatives have a central role in our system, advocating on behalf of and representing the views of their constituents. Both Houses carefully scrutinise and hold the Government to account and, through transparent engagement with Parliament, the Government facilitate that effective and important scrutiny work.
These are rights and principles that apply to all parts of the UK, whose constituent parts are represented in our parliamentary system, which is defined by a number of important elements. Under the UK’s parliamentary system, the ability of the Government to command the confidence of the House of Commons is the fundamental principle that enables government and Parliament to operate smoothly.
Ours is a representative democracy; because all individuals within the UK are represented, they are incentivised to participate in the electoral process. Government Ministers are, of course, drawn from both Houses, as I am lucky enough to know. The majority of Ministers are drawn from the Commons and not only accountable to the nation as a whole but required to address the local concerns of individuals represented by their individual MP.
Our parliamentary democracy is effective because it is grounded in tradition while being sufficiently flexible and adaptable to the circumstances of the day. This system allows for the development of policy and the passage of legislation under the careful scrutiny of Parliament when there is a majority in favour of the Government’s programme. Our parliamentary democracy allows for a high level of accountability and transparency by various mechanisms, of which noble Lords will be well aware, and to the success of which individuals in this House certainly contribute.
Our House—the Lords—as it is now would not be invented by anyone seeking to design a constitution, and over time we are likely to see further evolution of our constitutional arrangements. Until then, we perform a useful role in providing the scrutiny and accountability I mentioned. I think particular strengths are our scrutiny of Bills and SIs, including the revision of important detailed and complex clauses, and our respective committees, because they are the most fruitful area of engagement with the media; we play a crucial role in accurately informing the press.
I have been struck also by the strength the House gets from diverse specialisms: from different walks of life, from age—young and old, from geography and the wisdom of mature politicians of different persuasions who can help Governments to learn from past mistakes. In a very useful intervention, my noble friend Lord Shinkwin highlighted the role that individuals like himself, with his background and disability, can play in the House. He demonstrates that all the time, and I thank him for his support today.
There is an eclectic mix which brings much benefit, contributing in my view to our stable constitution. However, I must stress that in doing our work it is important that we recognise the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected Chamber. I believe the dilution of this is one of the problems with Gordon Brown’s proposed reforms, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, touched on briefly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned corruption in her opening remarks. I do not believe that this country is systematically corrupt, but corruption does pose a threat to all democracies, the economy and security. Corruption threatens to erode trust in our institutions, which is why the Government are taking steps all the time to address these threats. I refer her, and I think she has had a debate on this subject, to the Home Office-led anti-corruption strategy and to the Defending Democracy Taskforce, which is very important and on which I have the pleasure of sitting.
It has been a good debate and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and everyone else who has spoken. I am sorry I have not been able to refer to everybody, but we have had contributions on everything from housing to water, to the more obvious subjects. I agree with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth—that surprised him—about the importance of trust and honesty in public life, saying what you know to be true in Parliament and elsewhere, and on the value of leadership skills, both for Ministers and for senior civil servants. As a Cabinet Office Minister and as a former director of well-managed international companies, I spend a good deal of time encouraging leadership and skills training, and trying to move things forward.
When assessing the strengths of our parliamentary democracy, one of the greatest is our ability to evolve and develop over time, to meet and resolve different challenges. This flexibility is what makes it so effective, and I was interested that the noble Baroness picked up on this point about flexibility, going forward.
To sum up, we have a vibrant parliamentary democracy; we should be proud of that but, as always, we must strive to maintain and if possible improve on the present position.
Online Safety Bill
Tuesday 25th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 87(Rev)-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (25 Apr 2023)
“(g) the duties on regulated provider pornographic content set out in section 72.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires user-to-user services to comply with duties under Part 5.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to the amendments in this group, which are in my name and are also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. There are three interconnected issues raised by these amendments. First, there should be a level playing field across the Bill for regulating pornographic content. The same duties should apply to all content, whether it is found in social media or a user-to-user pornography site, which fall under Part 3, or a commercial pornography site, with producer content that falls within Part 5 of the Bill. Secondly, these common duties in respect of pornography must come into effect at the same time. My requiring that the same duties under Clause 72 apply to both Part 3 and Part 5 services means that they will be regulated for pornographic content at the same time, ensuring uniformity across the Bill.
Thirdly, through Amendment 125A, I wish to probe how Part 5 will function more specifically. Will any website or platform actually be covered by Part 5 if these amendments are not made? I had the privilege of speaking earlier to the Minister on these issues, and one question I would pose at this stage is, how many sites are covered by Part 5? That is one of the questions to which your Lordships’ House requires an answer.
The issue of ensuring that pornography is named as a harm on the face of the Bill, and that all pornographic content is age-verified, is not new. Indeed, it has been raised from the outset of the Bill, including at Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. In pre-legislative scrutiny even, the Joint Committee on the draft Bill recommended that
“key, known risks of harm to children are set out on the face of the Bill. We would expect these to include (but not be limited to) access to or promotion of age-inappropriate material such as pornography”.
To partly address this issue, the Government added Part 5 to the Bill, which sought to ensure that any platform that was not in scope of Part 3 but which included pornographic content should be subject to age-verification measures. I know that other noble Lords have put forward amendments that would add to the list of online harms on the face of the Bill, which we will be debating later in group 10.
Other amendments add to the duties that platforms hosting pornographic content need to comply with. These include Amendment 184, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which proposes that consent be obtained from performers, and Amendment 185, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, which seeks to ensure parity between what is permissible offline and online. The amendments I propose in this group are, I believe, complementary to those amendments. My amendments seek to ensure that duties across Part 3 and Part 5 in respect of pornography are aligned. Therefore, those additional duties contained in other amendments would be aligned across the Bill as well. When we get to that stage in Committee, I will be supporting those amendments.
The harms of pornography are well known and I do not propose to go over those again. I do, however, want to highlight one issue raised in a recent report published by the Children’s Commissioner for England. Her report states:
“Pornography is not confined to dedicated adult sites. We found that Twitter was the online platform where young people were most likely to have seen pornography. Fellow mainstream social networking platforms Instagram and Snapchat rank closely after dedicated pornography sites.”
The report found that 41% of children encountered pornography on Twitter, 33% on Instagram and 32% on Snapchat, while only 37% of children encountered pornography on main commercial websites. This means that children are more likely to encounter pornographic content on social media. That is why we need to ensure that standards across all platforms are uniform. The same standards need to apply to social media as to commercial pornography websites.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, first, I tender an apology from my noble friend Lord Morrow, whose name is attached to the amendments. Unfortunately, he is unable to participate in tonight’s debate, as he had to return home at very short notice. I will speak to the amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and my noble friend Lord Morrow for tabling the amendments, allowing for a debate on how the duties of Part 5 should apply to Part 3 services and to probe what sites Part 5 will cover once it is implemented.
The Government have devised a Bill which attempts carefully to navigate regulation of several different types of service. I am sure that it will eventually become an exemplar emulated around the world, so I understand why there may be a general resistance on the part of the Government to tamper with the Bill’s architecture. However, these amendments are designed to treat pornographic content as a clear exception wherever it is found online. This can be achieved, because we already know the harm caused by pornography and Part 5 already creates a duty to ensure that rigorous age verification is in place to stop children accessing it.
The Government recognised that the original drafting of the Bill would not address the unfinished business of Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. In 2017, as many will recall, this House and the other place expressed the clear demand that online pornography should not be accessible to children. Part 5 of the Bill is the evolution of that 2017 debate, but, regrettably, it was bolted on belatedly after pre-legislative scrutiny. That bolt-on approach has had the unfortunate consequence of creating two separate regimes to deal with pornography. Part 5 applies only to “provider pornographic content”, which is content
“published or displayed on the service by the provider … or by a person acting on behalf of the provider”.
Clause 70 makes it clear:
“Pornographic content that is user-generated content … is not to be regarded as provider pornographic content”;
in other words, if pornography is on social media or the large tube sites, it falls under Part 3, not Part 5. That means that not all content will be regulated in the same way or at the same time.
Amendment 125A addresses an issue raised by this two-tier approach to regulation. Clause 49 defines “user-generated content” as content
“generated directly on the service by a user of the service, or … uploaded to or shared on the service by a user of the service, and … that may be encountered by another user”.
Encounter is defined broadly, meaning to
“read, view, hear or otherwise experience content”,
including adding “comments and reviews”. By including reviews, that seems to be a broad definition. Does it include a like, an up vote or an emoji? That is an important question that Amendment 125A probes. On this basis, it seems that almost all the most popular pornographic websites are user-to-user services, and therefore will fall into Part 3.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is a tremendous honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who put the case extremely well; I agree with every word he just said. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for bringing forward this issue, which she has done extremely well. I thank Christian Action Research and Education, which has been fundamental in thinking through some of these issues and has written an extremely good brief on the subject. There is indeed an urgent need for consistent regulation of pornographic content wherever it occurs online, whether it is in Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 or wherever. That is why, with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I have tabled amendments to address age verification on pornography and harms in the round.
Our amendments, which we will get to on Thursday and on later days in Committee, are different from those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others, but it is worth noting that many of the principles are the same. In particular, all pornographic content should be subject to the same duties, in the interests of consistency and transparency, wherever it is. Porn is porn, regardless of where it occurs online, and it carries the same risk of harm, particularly to children, whether it is accessed on social media or on a dedicated porn site.
We know from the Children’s Commissioner’s research that, for instance, Twitter was absolutely the online platform where young people were most likely to have seen pornography. Not Pornhub or one of the big tubes—on Twitter. We also know that children will consistently watch porn on dedicated porn sites. So why do we have inconsistent regulation of pornographic content in the Bill? This is the question I address to my noble friend the Minister. We can and we will get to the debate on how we will do this—indeed, I welcome further discussion with the Minister on how, and encourage him to have conversations across the House on this.
For today, we must look at why we have inconsistent regulation for pornographic content and what that means. As currently drafted, Part 3 services and Part 5 services are not subject to the same duties, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out. Part 3 services, which include the biggest and most popular pornographic websites, such as Pornhub and Xvideos, as well as sites that host pornographic content, such as Twitter, will not be subject to regulation, including age verification, until secondary legislation is introduced, thereby delaying regulation of the biggest porn sites until at the very least 2025, if not 2026. This will create a massively unlevel playing field which, as others have said, will disincentivise compliance across the board, as well as leaving children with unfettered access to pornography on both social media sites and other user-to-user sites such as Pornhub.
Meanwhile, whichever commercially produced pornography websites are left in Part 5 will, as has already been suggested, simply change their functionality to become user-to-user and avoid regulation for another three years. I have a way in which this can be prevented and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has her way, but for today I stand with her in asking why the Government think this lack of consistency and fragmentation in the regulation of an industry that destroys childhoods and has implications that reverberate across society are to be accepted.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. It is clear to me that there is a consensus across the Committee and at every stage of the Bill that pornography should be regulated in a way that is consistent, clear and implemented as quickly as possible following Royal Assent—I have suggested within six months. Therefore, I would welcome discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, the Minister and others to ensure that this can be achieved.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I want to inject into the debate some counterarguments, which I hope will be received in the constructive spirit in which they are intended. Primarily, I want to argue that a level playing field is not the right solution here and that there is a strong logic for a graduated response. It is often tempting to dial everything up to 11 when you have a problem, and we clearly do have an issue around child access to pornography. But from a practical point of view, the tools we are giving our regulator are better served by being able to treat different kinds of services differently.
I think there are three classes of service that we are thinking about here. The first is a service with the primary purpose and explicit intent to provide pornography and nothing else. A regime dedicated to those sites is quite appropriate. Such a service might have not just the strongest levels of age verification but a whole other set of requirements, which I know we will debate later, around content verification and all sorts of other things that kick into play. The second category is made up of services that are primarily designed for social interaction which prohibit pornography and make quite strenuous efforts to keep it off. Facebook is such a service. I worked there, and we worked hard to try to keep pornography off. We could not guarantee that it was never present, but that was our intent: we explicitly wanted to be a non-pornographic site. Then there are—as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, pointed out—other services, such as Twitter, where the primary purpose is social but a significant proportion of adult content is allowed.
I suggest that one of the reasons for having a graduated response is that, from our point of view, we would like services to move towards porn reduction, and for those general-purpose services to prohibit porn as far as possible. That is our intent. If we have a regulatory system that says, “Look, we’re just going to treat you all the same anyway”, we may provide a perverse incentive for services not to move up the stack, as it were, towards a regime where by having less pornographic or sexualised content, they are able to see some benefit in terms of their relationship with the regulator. That is the primary concern I have around this: that by treating everybody the same, we do not create any incentive for people to deal with porn more effectively and thereby get some relief from the regulator.
From a practical point of view, the relationship that the regulator has is going to be critical to making all these things work. Look at what has been happening in continental Europe. There have been some real issues around enforcing laws that have been passed in places such as France and Germany because there has not been the kind of relationship that the regulator needs with the providers. I think we would all like to see Ofcom in a better position, and one of the ways it can do that is precisely by having different sets of rules. When it is talking to a pure pornography site, it is a different kind of conversation from the one it is going to have with a Twitter or a Facebook. Again, they need to have different rules and guidance that are applied separately.
The intent is right: we want to stop under-18s getting on to those pure porn sites, and we need one set of tools to do that. When under-18s get on to a social network that has porn on it, we want the under-18s, if they meet the age requirement, to have access—that is perfectly legitimate—but once they get there, we want them kept out of the section that is adult. For a general-purpose service that prohibits porn, I think we can be much more relaxed, at least in respect of pornography but not in respect of other forms of harmful content—but we want the regulator to be focused on that and not on imposing porn controls. That graduated response would be helpful to the regulator.
Some of the other amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has proposed will help us to talk about those kinds of measures—what Twitter should do inside Twitter, and so on—but the amendments we have in front of us today are more about dialling it all up to 11 and not allowing for that graduation. That is the intent I heard from the amendments’ proposers. As I say, that is the bit that, respectfully, may end up being counterproductive.
Lord Bethell (Con)
Could the noble Lord advise us on how he would categorise a site such as Twitter, on which it is estimated that 13% of the page deliveries are to do with pornography? Does it qualify as a pornography site? To me, it is ambiguous. Such a large amount of its financial revenue comes from pages connected with pornography that it seems it has a very big foot in the pornography industry. How would he stop sites gaming definitions to benefit from one schedule or another? Does he think that puts great pressure on the regulator to be constantly moving the goalposts in order to capture who it thinks might be gaming the system, instead of focusing on content definition, which has a 50-year pedigree, is very well defined in law and is an altogether easier status to analyse and be sure about?
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
The Twitter scenario, and other scenarios of mixed sites, are some of the most challenging that we have to deal with. But I would say, straightforwardly, “Look, 13% is a big chunk, but the primary purpose of Twitter is not the delivery of pornography”. I use Twitter on a daily basis and I have never seen pornography on it. I understand that it is there and that people can go for it, and that is an issue, but I think people out there would say that for most people, most of the time, the primary purpose of Twitter is not pornography.
What we want to do—in answer to the noble Lord’s second point—is create an incentive for people to be recategorised in the right direction. There is an assumption here that it is all going to be about gaming the system. I actually think that there is an opportunity here for genuine changes. There will be a conversation with Twitter. It will be interesting, given Twitter’s current management—apparently it is run by a dog, so there will be a conversation with the dog that runs Twitter. In that conversation, the regulator, Ofcom, on our behalf, will be saying, “You could change your terms of service and get rid of pornography”. Twitter will say yes or no. If it says no, Ofcom will say, “Well, here are all the things we expect you to do in order to wall off that part of the site”.
That is a really healthy and helpful conversation to have with Twitter. I expect it is listening now and already thinking about how it will respond. But it would expect that kind of treatment and conversation to be different; and I think the public would expect that conversation to be a different and better conversation than just saying “Twitter, you’re Pornhub. We’re just going to treat you like Pornhub”.
That is the distinction. As I say, we have an opportunity to get people to be more robust about either limiting or removing pornography, and I fear that the amendments we have in front of us would actually undermine rather than enhance that effort.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
At the centre of this is the question of whether we are trying to block the entire service or block at the level of porn content. It is the purpose of a set of amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, myself and a number of other noble Lords to do exactly the latter. But I have to say to the noble Baroness that I am very much in sympathy with, first, putting porn behind an age gate; secondly, having a commencement clause; and, thirdly and very importantly—this has not quite come up in the conversation—saying that harms must be on the face of the Bill and that porn is not the only harm. I say, as a major supporter of the Bereaved Families for Online Safety, that “Porn is the only harm children face” would be a horrendous message to come from this House. But there is nothing in the noble Baroness’s amendments, apart from where the action happens, that I disagree with.
I also felt that the noble Baroness made an incredibly important point when she went into detail on Amendment 125A. I will have to read her speech in order to follow it, because it was so detailed, but the main point she made is salient and relates to an earlier conversation: the reason we have Part 5 is that the Government have insisted on this ridiculous thing about user-to-user and search, instead of doing it where harm is. The idea that you have Part 5, which is to stop the loophole of sites that do not have user-to-user, only to find that they can add user-to-user functionality and be another type of site, is quite ludicrous. I say to the Committee and the Minister, who I am sure does not want me to say it, “If you accept Amendment 2, you’d be out of that problem”—because, if a site was likely to be accessed by children and it had harm and we could see the harm, it would be in scope. That is the very common-sense approach. We are where we are, but let us be sensible about making sure the system cannot be gamed, because that would be ludicrous and would undermine everybody’s efforts—those of the Government and of all the campaigners here.
I just want to say one more thing because I see that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is back in his place. I want to put on the record that age assurance and identity are two very separate things. I hope that, when we come to debate the package of harms—unfortunately, we are not debating them all together; we are debating harms first, then AV—we get to the bottom of that issue because I am very much in the corner of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on this. Identity and age assurance must not be considered the same thing by the House, and definitely not by the legislation.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I add my support for all the amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for bringing the need for the consistent regulation of pornographic content to your Lordships’ attention. Last week, I spoke about my concerns about pornography; I will not repeat them here. I said then that the Bill does not go far enough on pornography, partly because of the inconsistent regulation regimes between Part 3 services and Part 5 ones.
In February, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Commercial Sexual Exploitation made a series of recommendations on the regulation of pornography. Its first recommendation was this:
“Make the regulation of pornography consistent across different online platforms, and between the online and offline spheres”.
It went on to say:
“The reforms currently contained in the Online Safety Bill not only fail to remedy this, they introduce further inconsistencies in how different online platforms hosting pornography are regulated”.
This is our opportunity to get it right but we are falling short. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, go to the heart of the issue by ensuring that the duties that currently apply to Part 5 services will also apply to Part 3 services.
Debates about how these duties should be amended or implemented will be dealt with later on in our deliberations; I look forward to coming back to them in detail then. Today, the question is whether we are willing to have inconsistent regulation of pornographic content across the services that come into the scope of the Bill. I am quite sure that, if we asked the public in an opinion poll whether this was the outcome they expected from the Bill, they would say no.
An academic paper published in 2021 reported on the online viewing of 16 and 17 year-olds. It said that pornography was much more frequently viewed on social media, showing that the importance of the regulation of such sites remains. The impact of pornography is no different whether it is seen on a social media or pornography site with user-to-user facilities that fall within Part 3 or on a site that has only provider content that would fall within Part 5. There should not be an either/or approach to different services providing the same content, which is why I think that Amendment 125A is critical. If all pornographic content is covered by Part 5, what does and does not constitute user-generated material ceases to be our concern. Amendment 125A highlights this issue; I too look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
There is no logic to having different regulatory approaches in the same Bill. They need to be the same and come into effect at the same time. That is the simple premise of these amendments; I fully support them.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, earlier today the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to a group of us as kindred spirits. I suggest that all of us contributing to this debate are kindred spirits in our desire to see consistent outcomes. All of us would like to see a world where our children never see pornography on any digital platform, regardless of what type of service it is. At the risk of incurring the ire of my noble friend Lord Moylan, we should have zero tolerance for children seeing and accessing pornography.
I agree with the desire to be consistent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, but it is consistency in outcomes that we should focus on. I am very taken with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, that we must be very careful about the unintended consequences of a consistent regulatory approach that might end up with inconsistent outcomes.
When we get to it later—I am not sure when—I want to see a regulatory regime that is more like the one reflected in the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Bethell. We need in the Bill a very clear definition of what age assurance and age verification are. We must be specific on the timing of introducing the regulatory constraints on pornography. We have all waited far too long for that to happen and that must be in the Bill.
I am nervous of these amendments that we are debating now because I fear other unintended consequences. Not only does this not incentivise general providers, as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, described them, to remove porn from their sites but I fear that it incentivises them to remove children from their sites. That is the real issue with Twitter. Twitter has very few child users; I do not want to live in a world where our children are removed from general internet services because we have not put hard age gates on the pornographic content within them but instead encouraged those services to put an age gate on the front door. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said earlier today, I fear that, with all the best intentions, the desire to have consistent outcomes and these current amendments would regulate the high street rather than the porn itself.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, there is absolutely no doubt that across the Committee we all have the same intent; how we get there is the issue between us. It is probably about the construction of the Bill, rather than the duties that we are imposing.
It is a pleasure again to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. If you take what my noble friend Lord Allan said about a graduated response and consistent outcomes, you then get effective regulation.
I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, had it right. If we passed her amendments in the second group, and included the words “likely to be accessed”, Clause 11 would bite and we would find that there was consistency of outcomes for primary priority content and so on, and we would then find ourselves in much the same space. However, it depends on the primary purpose. The fear that we have is this. I would not want to see a Part 5 service that adds user-generated content then falling outside Part 5 and finding itself under Part 3, with a different set of duties.
I do not see a huge difference between Part 3 and Part 5, and it will be very interesting when we come to debate the later amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Again, why do we not group these things together to have a sensible debate? We seem to be chunking-up things in a different way and so will have to come back to this and repeat some of what we have said. However, I look forward to the debate on those amendments, which may be a much more effective way of dealing with this than trying to marry Part 5 and Part 3.
I understand entirely the motives of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and that we want to ensure that we capture this. However, it must be the appropriate way of regulating and the appropriate way of capturing it. I like the language about consistent outcomes without unintended consequences.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very helpful debate and I hope it sets up the Committee up for when we return to these issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, just said, it is about having appropriate regulation that does the job that we want. I feel from this debate, as I have felt before, that we are in agreement about what we want; the question, as ever, is how we get there.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, spoke well on the practicalities of the different ways that pornography is accessible and, because they are so different, the need to respond differently. An example is Twitter, which is primarily a social network but its content can be inappropriate when accessed by a group who should not be accessing it—children, in this case. It is important that the way this is approached does not take away the ability of Twitter, for example, to do the job that it is there to do but does protect those who need to be protected. The words that came to mind is that regulation needs to be fit for purpose, but the question is what the purpose is and how we make it fit for it.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken today. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, spoke of consistency of outcome. That is a very good place from which to look backwards to see what is required. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was right to say that we must not send out the message that pornography is, somehow, the only harm or that there is a hierarchy of harms. In my view, we are simply debating that at this stage. So pornography is not the only harm, nor is it of a higher order than other harms.
I would like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who was supported in the Chamber by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on behalf of his noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who put his name to some of these amendments. I am grateful because the debate in this area facilitated an early debate on the issue of regulation and online pornography, and did it thoroughly. It raised a number of questions that we will need to address when debating later amendments.
There is no denying the damage that can be caused by young people readily having access to pornographic content online. They see material that it would be illegal for them to see offline. If we have already dealt with offline, our challenge is to protect children and young people in the same way online. However, as we will discuss later and probably at some length, this side of the House does not accept that access to illegal pornography is the only issue affecting how children can and should use the internet. Exposure to pornographic content changes young people’s perceptions of sexual activity and, in the worst cases, can contribute to sexual assault. Even in cases where there is consent, evidence is available that shows that depictions of certain high-risk activities in pornographic material mean that many more people are engaging in, for example, choking and asphyxiation, with the predictable but tragic outcome of permanent injury or even death.
Having said that, later we will be debating measures that need to be put in place to protect children of 18 and under from accessing sites that they are likely to encounter. We need to ensure that age-appropriate design is the keystone to the protection of children online. We are relying heavily on effective terms of service to protect vulnerable adults from accessing material which would cause them harm, and that issue definitely needs more debate.
Pornography has an influence on adult sexual behaviour and, regardless of our own personal views, we have to remember that much adult content is in fact perfectly legal, and for whatever reason, it is also very popular. While some of the most widely used user-to-user platforms have opted not to carry adult material, there are others, as we have heard in the debate, such as Twitter and Reddit, that do allow users to share explicit but legal content. There has been an explosion in the number of so-called content creators who upload their own material to sites such as OnlyFans. There has also been an explosion in user-to-user services such as Twitter, which I would presume to be the very valid motivation behind Amendment 183A.
Steps taken to restrict child access to adult content and user-to-user platforms are often easy to bypass, so the question of whether such services should be within the scope of Part 5 is indeed a valid one. There are some platforms that do take their responsibilities seriously, with OnlyFans having engaged with the topic of online safety long before it will be compelled to do so; but others have not. So, on that basis, it is clear that we cannot continue with the status quo given the ever-increasing risk that illegal material does not get taken down by algorithms and automated moderation.
We recognise that the Government have had their own reasons for not implementing Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. That decision was disappointing, and in fact, the disappointment was made even worse by repeated empty promises, dither and delay. However, the department clearly recognises the issue, which is a welcome first step, and it is not clear that simply rerunning the arguments from the DEA is going to bear fruit this time round. This Bill is largely apolitical, and colleagues on all sides of the House, including from these Benches, have the opportunity to come together; we have the opportunity to agree a way forward to protect children, to reduce exposure to extreme forms of pornography but ultimately to allow adults to consume pornography if they wish to do so. That is the challenge that we have.
These Benches support robust age verification for access to pornographic content, but it is vital that these systems are secure and take appropriate steps to preserve the user’s privacy. The questions raised in this group are extremely valid, and the proposals presented by other colleagues, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, deserve very serious consideration. We hope that the Minister can demonstrate in his response that progress is being made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, first, I will address Amendments 12BA, 183A and 183B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who I was grateful to discuss them with earlier today, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, whose noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, I am grateful to for speaking to them on his behalf.
These amendments seek to apply the duties in Part 5 of the Bill, which are focused on published pornographic content and user-generated pornography. Amendments 183A and 183B are focused particularly on making sure that children are protected from user-to-user pornography in the same way as from published pornography, including through the use of age verification. I reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that the Government share their concerns; there is clear evidence about the impact of pornography on young people and the need to protect children from it.
This is where I come to the questions posed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown. The research we commissioned from the British Board of Film Classification assessed the functionality of and traffic to the UK’s top 200 most visited pornographic websites. The findings indicated that 128 of the top 200 most visited pornographic websites—that is just under two-thirds, or 64%—would have been captured by the proposed scope of the Bill at the time of the Government’s initial response to the online harms White Paper, and that represents 85% of the traffic to those 200 websites.
Since then, the Bill’s scope has been broadened to include search services and pornography publishers, meaning that children will be protected from pornography wherever it appears online. The Government expect companies to use age-verification technologies to prevent children accessing services which pose the highest risk to children, such as online pornography. Age-assurance technologies and other measures will be used to provide children with an age-appropriate experience on their service.
As noble Lords know, the Bill does not mandate that companies use specific approaches or technologies when keeping children safe online as it is important that the Bill is future-proofed: what is effective today might not be so effective in the future. Moreover, age verification may not always be the most appropriate or effective approach for user-to-user companies to comply with their duties under the Bill. For instance, if a user-to-user service, such as a social medium, does not allow pornography under its terms of service, measures such as strengthening content moderation and user reporting would be more appropriate and effective for protecting children than age verification. That would allow content to be better detected and removed, instead of restricting children from a service that is designed to be appropriate for their use—as my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe puts it, avoiding the situation where children are removed from these services altogether.
While I am sympathetic to the aims of these amendments, I assure noble Lords that the Bill already has robust, comprehensive protections in place to keep children safe from all pornographic content, wherever or however it appears online. This amendment is therefore unnecessary because it duplicates the existing provisions for user-to-user pornography in the child safety duties in Part 3.
It is important to be clear that, wherever they are regulated in the Bill, companies will need to ensure that children cannot access pornographic content online. This is made clear, for user-to-user content, in Clause 11(3); for search services, in Clause 25(3); and for published pornographic content in Clause 72(2). Moving the regulation of pornography from Part 3 to Part 5 would not be a workable or desirable option because the framework is effective only if it is designed to reflect the characteristics of the services in scope.
Part 3 has been designed to address the particular issues arising from the rapid growth in platforms that allow the sharing of user-generated content but are not the ones choosing to upload that content. The scale and speed of dissemination of user-generated content online demands a risk-based and proportionate approach, as Part 3 sets out.
It is also important that these companies understand the risks to children in the round, rather than focusing on one particular type of content. Risks to children will often be a consequence of the design of these services—for instance, through algorithms, which need to be tackled holistically.
I know that the noble Baroness is concerned about whether pornography will indeed be designated as primary priority content for the purposes of the child safety duties in Clauses 11(3) and 25(3). The Government fully intend this to be the case, which means that user-to-user services will need to have appropriate systems to prevent children accessing pornography, as defined in Clause 70(2).
The approach taken in Part 3 is very different from services captured under Part 5, which are publishing content directly, know exactly where it is located on their site and already face legal liability for the content. In this situation the service has full control over its content, so a risk-based approach is not appropriate. It is reasonable to expect that service to prevent children accessing pornography. We do not therefore consider it necessary or effective to apply the Part 5 duties to user-to-user pornographic content.
I also assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that, in a case where a provider of user-to-user services is directly publishing pornographic content on its own service, it will already be subject to the Part 5 duties in relation to that particular content. Those duties in relation to that published pornographic content will be separate from and in addition to their Part 3 duties in relation to user-generated pornographic content.
This means that, no matter where published pornographic content appears, the obligation to ensure that children are not normally able to encounter it will apply to all in-scope internet service providers that publish pornographic content. This is made clear in Clause 71(2) and is regardless of whether they also offer user-to-user or search services.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry, but can the Minister just clarify that? Is he saying that it is not possible to be covered by both Part 3 and Part 5, so that where a Part 5 service has user-generated content it is also covered by Part 3? Can he clarify that you cannot just escape Part 5 by adding user-generated content?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, that is correct. I was trying to address the points raised by the noble Baroness, but the noble Lord is right. The point on whether people might try to be treated differently by allowing comments or reviews on their content is that they would be treated the same way. That is the motivation behind the noble Baroness’s amendment trying to narrow the definition. There is no risk that a publisher of pornographic content could evade their Part 5 duties by enabling comments or reviews on their content. That would be the case whether or not those reviews contained words, non-verbal indications that a user liked something, emojis or any other form of user-generated content.
That is because the Bill has been designed to confer duties on different types of content. Any service with provider pornographic content will need to comply with the Part 5 duties to ensure that children cannot normally encounter such content. If they add user-generated functionality—
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am sorry to come back to the same point, but let us take the Twitter example. As a publisher of pornography, does Twitter then inherit Part 5 responsibilities in as much as it is publishing pornography?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is covered in the Bill as Twitter. I am not quite sure what my noble friend is asking me. The harms that he is worried about are covered in different ways. Twitter or another social medium that hosts such content would be hosting it, not publishing it, so would be covered by Part 3 in that instance.
Lord Bethell (Con)
Maybe my noble friend the Minister could write to me to clarify that point, because it is quite a significant one.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Perhaps I will speak to the noble Lord afterwards and make sure I have his question right before I do so.
I hope that answers the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and that on that basis, she will be happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging debate, concentrating not only on the definition of pornography but on the views of noble Lords in relation to how it should be regulated, and whether it should be regulated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Browne, and I myself believe, or whether it should be a graduated response, which seems to be the view of the noble Lords, Lord Allan and Lord Clement-Jones.
I believe that all pornography should be treated the same. There is no graduated response. It is something that is pernicious and leads to unintended consequences for many young people, so therefore it needs to be regulated in all its forms. I think that is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was making. I believe that these amendments should have been debated along with those of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, because then we could have an ever wider-ranging debate, and I look forward to that in the further groups in the days to come. The focus should be on the content, not on the platform, and the content is about pornography.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that porn is not the only harm, and I will be supporting her amendments. I believe that they should be in the Bill because if we are serious about dealing with these issues, they have to be in there.
I do not think my amendments are suggesting that children will be removed from social media. I agree that it is a choice to remove pornography or to age-gate. Twitter is moving to subscriber content anyway, so it can do it; the technology is already available to do that. I believe you just age-gate the porn content, not the whole site. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as I said. These amendments should have been debated in conjunction with those of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as I believe that the amendments in this group are complementary to those, and I think I already said that in my original submission.
I found the Minister’s response interesting. Obviously, I would like time to read Hansard. I think certain undertakings were given, but I want to see clearly spelled out where they are and to discuss with colleagues across the House where we take these issues and what we come back with on Report.
I believe that these issues will be debated further in Committee when the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, are debated. I hope that in the intervening period the Minister will have time to reflect on the issues raised today about Parts 3 and 5 and the issue of pornography, and that he will be able to help us in further sessions in assuaging the concerns that we have raised about pornography. There is no doubt that these issues will come back. The only way that they can be dealt with, that pornography can be dealt with and that all our children throughout the UK can be dealt with is through proper regulation.
I think we all need further reflection. I will see, along with colleagues, whether it is possible to come back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the Minister’s name to clause 11 below (because the new duty to summarise children’s risk assessments in the terms of service is only imposed on providers of Category 1 services).
“(za) the duty about illegal content risk assessments set out in section 9(8A),(zb) the duty about children’s risk assessments set out in section 11(10A),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the new duties set out in the amendments in the Minister’s name to clauses 9 and 11 below (duties to summarise risk assessments in the terms of service) are imposed on providers of Category 1 services only.
(f) the duty about record-keeping set out in section 19(8A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the new duty set out in the amendment in the Minister’s name to clause 19 below (duty to supply records of risk assessments to OFCOM) is imposed on providers of Category 1 services only.