Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26 April 2023

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

Antisocial Behaviour in Town Centres

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of antisocial behaviour in town centres.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, in a debate on an important issue. Antisocial behaviour is a plague that haunts many of our town and city centres, our villages and our countryside. We all feel passionately about the issue, and I am sure we all receive much correspondence about it. Therefore, we all need to get on top of it. If we are to deliver real, positive change for our constituencies, it is important that we tackle antisocial behaviour in all its forms.

As Members of Parliament, we like to sing from the rooftops about the positives in our communities—how well our businesses are doing, how safe it feels to go around our town centres—but we need to tackle darker issues such as antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and physical assaults taking place on our streets. I want to use the debate to outline some of the challenges that I unfortunately face in Keighley and in Ilkley, as well as some of the positive work that the Government are doing and further work that I would like them to do.

According to the Office for National Statistics, the police recorded 1.2 million incidents of antisocial behaviour in the year ending June 2022, which is a 16% decrease compared with the year ending March 2020. Antisocial behaviour, while decreasing, remains a problem for us all to face, and I want to describe some examples of antisocial behaviour in Keighley. There is a huge problem around the bus station. Young people are being approached and mobile phones taken off them. Assaults are taking place in the centre of Keighley where people are coming and going, and wanting to access businesses. Sometimes, the environment is intimidating and unsafe. I receive a lot of correspondence about that particular hotspot.

There are various hotspot streets, particularly around the Lund Park area of Keighley, and I have received correspondence about Westburn Avenue. The incidents that take place are localised micro-incidents. Nevertheless, they build the fear factor that we all associate with antisocial behaviour.

We have had some darker incidents as well, such as vehicles being targeted, and petrol being poured on vehicles and set alight. That happened only a couple of weeks ago outside a location in Keighley that I know well. We have also had speeding and the antisocial behaviour associated with it, extreme speeding and cars with loud exhausts going up and down particular streets in Keighley, such as North Street, Cavendish Street, Oakworth Road and Fell Lane. I have received a lot of correspondence about drivers purposely accelerating way beyond the speed limits that have been put in place. The police have been doing their level best to try to tackle those incidents.

Another issue in Keighley is cars being driven without insurance and parked cars that are way beyond having passed their MOT test. Some of those cars are parked at the roadside, particularly where drug drops and distribution take place.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a good speech and giving us an A to Z of road names in his constituency. Does he agree that tackling the list of problems he faces in Keighley, which I also see in south Devon, is about enforcement, police visibility and ensuring that young people have things to do—options and opportunities to go out and achieve?

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I want to paint a picture of the challenges that we all face as MPs and describe the nature of the correspondence that is arriving in our inboxes, whether it is about speeding, antisocial behaviour or physical assault. We have to get to grips with why such incidents take place. It is predominantly those of a younger age who are participating in them, whether because of boredom or a lack of activities on offer to them.

One of the things that I have been doing—I believe that my hon. Friend has been doing this as well—is engaging in dialogue in community meetings. I hold large constituency surgeries and invite the police along, so that the issues can be raised. It is always fed back to me that police prioritisation relies on data collection. How many meetings do MPs go to and hear that, while residents know that these issues are happening on their streets, they have not necessarily been reported via the 101 system or email, or to the community police station so that data is collected and police enforcement targeted in specific areas?

On the outskirts of Keighley, the Utley safer streets group holds regular meetings. It is organised at community level by local residents and provides me as the MP, district councillors and the local police with the opportunity to go along, receive information and provide feedback on what the local police forces do, while also serving as a means to hold them to account.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing today’s debate. A pub in Rutherglen in my constituency has faced awful harassment from teenagers who loiter and drink on the street outside, spoiling for a fight, and they have actually physically assaulted customers coming out of the pub. The pub has spent tens of thousands on preventive security measures, but the presence of a bouncer actually exacerbated the problem. The police have done a lot in this case, but a cross-agency approach is needed. Does the hon. Member share my concern about the lack of funding for these teams?

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes a valid point: street drinking is a big problem. It is one that we have in Keighley, particularly around the Church Green area, where groups hang around, causing issues for local businesses that want to grow, thrive and improve their customer base. However, street drinkers are putting people off going to those businesses. In my constituency, the police are doing a lot to try to alleviate the issues, including engaging in dialogue and correspondence. Sometimes it is up to the pubs and venues themselves to address the drink-related issues that spill out from them and the issues caused by some wishing to access their facilities. It is very much about having a joined-up approach, which I will come on to later in my speech.

[Anthony Mangnall]

My hon. Friend is being gracious in giving way again. I have set up a police hub initiative in my constituency where the police use local spaces to enhance visibility. That ensures that they can get out into the community more readily, rather than having to go back to HQ each time. It has been very effective in driving down crime and antisocial behaviour in local areas, at no extra cost to the state. Does my hon. Friend approve of that model?

[Robbie Moore]

It is an exceptionally good idea. Before I became an MP, the police station was in the centre of Keighley, but, frustratingly, our previous Labour police and crime commissioner decided to move it to an industrial estate just outside Keighley, which is not a good location. Everyone in Keighley knows that the police station is now out of the town centre as a result of that bad decision by the previous Labour PCC. I want that police station to be moved back to the centre of town.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

We all suffer from the closure of police stations. Will the hon. Member also condemn his own Government, who have overseen the closure of nearly 800 police stations across the country?

[Robbie Moore]

Our police station was not closed. The Labour PCC decided to move it out of the town centre to an industrial estate outside Keighley, making it less accessible to many of my constituents.

In addition, in the run-up to the 2019 general election, the then Labour PCC, the then Labour MP for Keighley and the Labour leader of Bradford Council gave false hope and false promise that the police station would be moved back to the centre of town. That false hope just happened to be announced in the run-up to the general election, but what happened? All those plans are now off the table as a result of our new West Yorkshire Mayor deciding that we cannot facilitate that move. I hope we will get an instruction, or as much help from the Government as possible, to move the police station back into the centre of Keighley, from which it should have never been moved in the first place.

On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) made, police hubs are an excellent idea. In many rural parts of my constituency, facilities such as village halls have been used for community-wide engagement. A police officer, a sergeant or the neighbourhood policing team can go along and have dialogue with residents, and communicate and provide reassurance at a micro-local level. We can use such facilities across our constituencies to enable dialogue and better reporting of issues and concerns.

On drug taking, I am very pleased that the Government have taken a stance on nitrous oxide—laughing gas—cannisters, which I have been campaigning to ban since being elected. In the summer months, and particularly on bank holiday weekends, a lot of people get the train from Bradford and Leeds to Ilkley to sit at the riverside and enjoy the sunshine, but sometimes the area is used for antisocial behaviour, and that is not fair for Ilkley residents.

We all face many, many issues with antisocial behaviour. I will quickly touch on fly-tipping. I represent an urban fringe-type constituency, and we have a lot of fly-tipping, particularly in the Worth Valley ward, where Councillor Rebecca Poulsen has been fighting incredibly hard, working with the police, to deal with fly-tipping-related incidents. We must not forget that dumping used construction material, or whatever else it might be, in our beautiful environment is a form of antisocial behaviour in its own right. It was horrifying that, at the back end of last year, our Labour-run Bradford Council decided to close the Keighley tip—a ridiculous decision that would have resulted in more fly-tipping across the constituency. I am pleased to say that after I brought a petition to this House, signed by more than 7,000 people, which Laura Kelly and Martin Crangle heavily campaigned for, Labour-run Bradford Council finally listened and overturned that ridiculous decision. It has now decided to keep the Keighley tip open.

I very much welcome the Government’s plan to put more police officers on our streets. As a Conservative MP, at the last election I campaigned to get 20,000 police officers back on to our streets, and West Yorkshire police has recruited more than 1,000 since I was elected. I want to ensure that they are prioritised in dealing with the many concerns that my constituents across Keighley raise. I urge the Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, to ensure that as many as possible of those police officers are on the streets of Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and Worth Valley to tackle antisocial behaviour and give our neighbourhood policing teams the means that they need.

It is a complete myth that Labour is the party of law and order, and that it actually cares about clamping down and being tough on those who commit offences that cause harm to others and try to rule the streets through fear. I can categorically say that that is not the case at all. Labour will not pull the wool over the eyes of residents across Keighley and Ilkley. It was so determined to secure power in Keighley a couple of years ago that it actively selected as a candidate for Labour-run Bradford council Mohsin Hussain, who only seven years earlier had been given a 12-month sentence, suspended for two years with 250 hours of unpaid community work, after being convicted of an armed street assault in Keighley with a pickaxe handle, causing bodily harm. Another of his gang used a baseball bat. When that individual was released on bail, he was caught accelerating to 77 mph in a 30 mph zone in Keighley, driving through a series of traffic lights at speed and going around the wrong side of a roundabout. Those are the types of antisocial behaviour issues that I get contacted about time and time again. These are unfortunately the very issues that are still happening in Keighley today—physical assaults and extreme speeding. Yet Labour’s answer to all of that is to select and actively campaign for a candidate who a few years previously had been handed a two-year suspended sentence. What is worse is that our West Yorkshire Mayor, Tracy Brabin, who is in charge of implementing our local police and crime strategy, John Grogan, who wants to be the next MP for Keighley, and the current Labour leader of Bradford Council all came to Keighley to campaign, knock on doors and deliver leaflets to get that individual into power. And now, unfortunately, he is a district councillor on the Labour-controlled authority.

What does that say to the victims of antisocial behaviour, the victims of street crime, those who have to put up with physical abuse and those who live near the streets where extreme speeding regularly takes place? My view is that Labour does not care about implementing a strong and robust police and crime strategy. Labour will use any means possible to secure the votes to secure power, taking the votes of people in Keighley and Ilkley for granted.

I say to the Minister that I appreciate the work of the Home Secretary and her predecessors in taking a robust approach to antisocial behaviour. It is an issue that impacts all our constituencies time and again. It is probably one of the biggest issues to fill my inbox. We cannot sing from the rooftops about the good things in our constituencies and promote our businesses without tackling the plague that continues to haunt our town centres. On that, I will hand over to other speakers, as I know that many want to take part in this debate.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to be called in this debate. I will not put a time limit on speeches, but be mindful that we will go to Front Benchers at 10.28 am, and that Robbie Moore will have a couple of minutes at the end to wind up.

09:47

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I wish I had prepared my contribution as a response to the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), because some of the outrageous statements he made were frankly unbelievable. Anyone would think that the Conservative party had not been in office for 13 years. Is it just me, or would anyone think there is an election around the corner? He hit back at the democratic processes in his constituency about who is elected. It is the people who elect their representatives. The MP does not select councillors—it is the people who do that. Criticism of the people in his own constituency might not go down well.

However, I seriously thank the hon. Member for bringing this timely debate on a massive subject, though it is shame he used it simply to try to attack the Labour party. That is extraordinary, to be honest. His closing remarks were along the lines of, “Thank you, Minister, for the wonderful robust approach that the Government have taken to antisocial behaviour on the high street.” If they are doing a great job, what is there to debate? There is either a problem that needs to be dealt with, or everything is okay. He cannot have it both ways, I am afraid.

The common denominator to the huge issues that I describe as high street anarchy is that the Conservative party in 2010 reduced the police by 20,000 officers.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

As always, my hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. I was in Northfield Primary School in South Kirkby on Monday, where there is a serious antisocial problem. The policing is lacking because of the cuts that he just referred to. I do not think we should be demonising a whole generation of young people. The Tories cut £1 billion or more of funding for youth services, so there is no youth provision in the villages I represent—there are no youth clubs—and all sorts of other facilities simply closed down as a result of those cuts. Does he agree that the backdrop to this problem of antisocial behaviour is, first, inadequate policing because of poor funding and, secondly, cuts to services upon which so many people depend?

[Ian Lavery]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it is so true. Are these young people bored? Perhaps it is boredom, but the hon. Member for Keighley should recognise that it is because of the reduction in youth provision and the withdrawal of funding to local authorities, charities and lots of other organisations that used to fund youth networks right the way through our communities. They are gone. That does not mean to say that, because people are bored, they can create havoc on the high streets, because that is not acceptable at all.

If we look at Northumbria police, I have to place on record that the police in my constituency do a marvellous job—every one of them—and they know that they are really under-resourced. That is the real issue on the high street: the police are under-resourced, and they have to assess and deal with crimes as they happen in real time. Do the police go to where the assaults are happening, or do they go to where somebody is pulling plants out of flowerbeds on the high street? I do not want to trivialise what is happening on the high street, because it is very, very important. There is theft taking place in the shops. There is vandalism. There is antisocial behaviour, and there is unruly behaviour. We have also noticed in my constituency an increase in racist abuse.

I put a survey out to retailers in Ashington, Newbiggin, Morpeth and Bedlington asking them about antisocial behaviour, and I got a fantastic response. They all have huge criticisms, and they all have different issues. We then had a meeting with the police on Friday night, and the sad fact of the matter was that very few people turned up, because there is absolutely no confidence at all in the criminal justice system. There is a recognition that the police do what they can, but there is a bigger recognition that they are not doing anything that is addressing the huge issue of antisocial behaviour on the high street.

Let me give a few examples of what is happening in my patch. We have people going into the bigger stores on the high street—into Boots and Co-op—and stealing stuff, and they are basically stealing, first, items to sell on, and secondly, items to keep themselves healthy and clean. People never used to go pinching to keep themselves clean and keep their babies’ clothes well washed, but that is one of the things that is happening now. There are people walking into some of the bigger stores on a daily basis and just picking up what they want and walking out. The people there are instructed by the management, and rightly so, that they cannot stop people stealing, because it is not their role—and if they do, goodness knows what the consequences might be.

We had a situation in my constituency where someone was stabbed trying to prevent somebody else from stealing from the shop. We have security guards in the bigger stores, but then we have the smaller retailers. We had a chap who mentioned that somebody just walked in last week, picked 24 cans of beer up and just walked out. They rang the police, and they got a response four days later. The response was: “Well, can you explain which direction the gentleman went in?” That was infuriating. The police might have had good reason to ask such a question, possibly for CCTV, but if someone just walks into a shop—into someone’s else business on the high street, which they depend on for themselves and their family—pick something up and walk out, the owner will want some action, for heaven’s sake. They want the police to come, not to ring four days later.

I would imagine that, at the very same time, there were other crimes assessed by the police to be a priority compared with what is happening on the high street. We have all sorts of issues on the high street. They have mentioned racism. I live in a constituency that I think is roughly 99.1% white, and racism has never, ever been an issue, but it is becoming an issue. The people themselves are asking the police to deal with the racial abuse—and again, it is not a priority. I mentioned the 20,000 police being taken off the streets in 2010, and we should never forget that. It really galls me, by the way, when we hear the Conservatives, time after time, saying, “We are putting police back on the street.” They should not have taken the police off the street in the first place. Since 2010, Northumbria police has lost 1,000 police officers. Because of the inflationary crisis, next year it will have to find a further £12 million, which will cause extra pressures.

People do not just want their crimes to be recorded and for somebody to perhaps ring up and say, “We will look at this,” or, “We’ll look at that”; they want to see the police on the high street. I have seen videos—Al Vaziri, who has been a businessman in Ashington in my constituency for decades and a pillar of society, showed us CCTV videos only last month of young people throwing a brick at his window. Everybody knows who the individual was; it is on CCTV. We need convictions. Mr Vaziri took the decision to retire, because he cannot put up with it any more—racial abuse was also a contributing factor. He has decided that he and his wife will retire, away from what they see happening on the high street.

We must realise that the system is entirely broken. On one side, we have the retailers, the hard-working people and the businesspeople, on high streets in different towns and villages in the community, who are suffering as a consequence of this unruly anarchy from young people who think they can do whatever they want—because they can do whatever they want, because they are not being challenged at any stage. Then we have the many retailers who are being forced out of business. This fella told me, “They come in, Mr Lavery, pinch these things and walk out. It’s robbery—they’re robbing me and robbing my family.” It is just not acceptable.

Retailers and people on the high streets are suffering greatly from abuse, bad behaviour, unruly behaviour, theft and robbery, and it is the police’s job to remedy the situation and tackle these issues. I give full praise to the police in my constituency for the fantastic work they do, but they simply do not have the resources. They have not said this to me, but I feel that they understand that they are having to undertake a tick-box exercise. They realise how broken the system is, because they say that they have to prioritise other issues. A startling fact that the inspector told me on Friday night is that just above 50% of the call-outs in my constituency are connected to mental health issues. The police are not social workers; they are there to tackle the issues I have raised, which will surely also be mentioned in other contributions to the debate.

Is it too much to ensure that the police are properly resourced to walk through communities, so that people see them? We very rarely see police officers on the beat. Again, I am not criticising the force; the police have had to face under-resourcing from the Government. It isn’t any wonder that if we take 20,000 police officers off the streets, there will be an increase in crime—that is logical. It is not really difficult to come to terms with or understand. The system is completely and utterly broken. This is about how we put that right.

To conclude, I simply praise police officers. We have to think about how we can address the huge issues affecting small and bigger businesses on the high street, because they are facing a ridiculous situation. This is going to be very difficult, but we need more police, we need more youth provision, and we need people to be held to account for what is happening on our high streets. Only when that happens will we begin to see a reduction in antisocial behaviour.

10:03

[Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) for securing this important debate.

For many of my constituents, the sad reality of living in Tory Britain is that antisocial behaviour is increasing in our town centres, and there has been a loss of confidence in the police. The Government have hollowed out neighbourhood policing, allowed vulnerable young people to be drawn into crime, and let confidence in the police and the criminal justice system collapse. Criminals are being let off, and victims are being let down. In my constituency-wide survey, the main concerns raised were policing and tackling crime, which constituents tell me is a massive issue. We need more police on our streets to make us feel safe. Young people no longer have faith in the police, and one of my constituents told me that a lot of people do not report crimes because they do not think the police will even bother to come out.

Antisocial behaviour is increasing in my communities in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale. A constituent told me that Erdington High Street at times feels lawless. Another told me that his 70-year-old father carries a personal attack alarm when he goes on his morning walk. A third is scared to walk with his dog in the local park. It is shameful that, after 13 years of Conservative Government, anywhere we look in Britain, nothing is working.

Erdington High Street is the beating heart of my community. Last August, Birmingham City Council and I put in a bid to the Government levelling-up fund for £11 million, which would have totally transformed our town centre and gone a long way to reducing antisocial behaviour in our area. But the Tory Government let us down yet again, rejecting ours and the four other Birmingham bids. While Erdington will not receive a single penny from the Government’s £2.1 billion fund, despite ranking in the top 10% of deprived areas in the country, the Prime Minister’s own affluent constituency received £19 million.

At the same time, I have been campaigning relentlessly alongside local residents to oppose an application to open an eighth betting shop on our high street. Sadly, the Government decided to back the gambling bosses and overturn local wishes. I am helping thousands of constituents with casework; I am holding meetings with local retailers concerned about antisocial behaviour on the high street; and I supported two great bids to the Government levelling-up fund that Ministers shamefully rejected. Sadly, Erdington feels left behind.

Councils are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour in town centres, but it is essential that the Government adequately resource policing and community safety officers to enforce restrictions put in place. It is no good saying the Government have put 20,000 police back on the streets when, 13 years ago, they literally hollowed out those services. I am doing my bit. Can the Minister tell me why the Government are not doing theirs?

10:07

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak in this morning’s debate and serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am not usually one for superstition, but I must say that this debate is incredibly timely. Sadly, only last weekend, my community was hit by a particularly violent bout of antisocial behaviour in our town centre of Pontypridd, while last night, another incident of unprovoked violence occurred in our town. At the time of preparing my comments for this debate, a distressing video of last Friday’s violent brawl is circulating online in which one individual can be seen laying on the floor literally having his head kicked in.

This is the sad reality of our high streets, but let me be clear: Pontypridd is not ordinarily a violent community. Antisocial behaviour is a blight on communities up and down the country—my area is not alone. Today’s debate is about an important national issue that our constituents rightly expect us to take seriously. But for me, this is also a persistent local issue, as my constituents are sick and tired of being intimidated by antisocial behaviour.

Last weekend, I was shocked and saddened to learn of such an incident taking place in a part of town that is usually—especially on market day—bustling with activity, as locals shop around for a bargain or enjoy a bite to eat at one of our many offerings. It is precisely because Pontypridd’s town centre is so often a vibrant place that I have my constituency office just seconds away from where the market traders set up their stalls.

Following recent events in Pontypridd, I want to place on record my heartfelt thanks for the swift actions of South Wales police and our local Pontypridd policing team, including Chief Inspector Helen Coulthard, Inspector Leigh Parfitt and Constable Liam Noyce among many others. South Wales police does phenomenal work to keep us safe, especially when much of its work happens thanklessly and tirelessly behind closed doors. However, the frustrating reality is that South Wales police is doing the best it can with extremely limited resources.

Embedded, preventive neighbourhood policing is such a vital part of keeping our streets safe. But let me be clear: after more than a decade of Tory budget cuts to policing across the UK, we have weakened our country’s capacity to deal with antisocial behaviour, both in a preventive capacity and, too often, when responding to it. I need not remind colleagues that this UK Tory Government have cut police officer numbers across the UK by thousands. Across the UK, charges have collapsed, antisocial perpetrators are getting away with their behaviour, and criminal damage and arson attacks have skyrocketed. We can, and we must, do better.

Proper neighbourhood policing is vital, but another important part of preventing antisocial behaviour is, of course, the adequate provision of youth services to get teenagers away from the streets. Shamefully, funding for those sorts of services has also been cut to the bone thanks to 13 years of Conservative rule in Westminster. Our communities up and down the country are facing undeniable funding pressures. Youth services have been completely slashed, which increases the chances of antisocial behaviour, and with neighbourhood policing on its knees, perpetrators are more likely to get away with their disgraceful behaviour.

I am proud to say that in Wales our Labour-led authority, despite the impossible challenge thrown at it by the UK Tory Government, is trying to make a difference for its communities. Indeed, we are fortunate that on Ponty high street, at the site of our old YMCA building, our town centre will soon boast an incredible £4.4 million arts and youth centre zone. The project will deliver true community spaces and provide much-needed youth services for a generation. I am also lucky to be well supported by a fantastic business improvement district. Pontypridd BID has been vital in championing antisocial behaviour prevention measures, where the UK Government funding has barely scratched the surface. But as with local authorities across the nation, it is overstretched and having to do more with less and less.

Colleagues will be aware that I am a proud and vocal champion for fair funding for Wales. The inadequacy of the Barnett funding formula is very much a topic for another day, but it is an important truth that the UK Government have a responsibility to support ASB-related projects across the UK. I put on record my thanks to the Welsh Labour Government, who with the limited powers available to them have committed to more police community support officers, and I look forward to welcoming the officers on the streets of Pontypridd this summer.

I also look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my points, and I sincerely hope that there is a strategy to tackle antisocial behaviour once and for all. We need an ambitious strategy to tackle it, but the Department has clearly failed thus far to act appropriately, which is having serious consequences for people across the UK. I sincerely hope that the Minister is listening and I look forward to her remarks.

10:12

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) for leading it. In the short time that he has been here, he has had many Westminster Hall and Adjournment debates on similar issues to this one. They are critical issues—the issues that people contact us about most—so it is good that he has set the scene. I thank him for his commitment to bringing such issues to Westminster Hall and the main Chamber for consideration. He deserves credit for that.

I am pleased to speak in the debate, because I have—as others do; I am not different from anybody else—such pride in the town centres in my constituency; Newtownards, Comber and Ballynahinch are the largest towns there. I have mentioned before that my main constituency office is in the town centre of Newtownards, and the sense of community there is so real. It is an area where people learn to know everyone. Of course, the fact that I have lived in the area for all but four years of my life, and have had a fairly long life, means that I know it well. I know the people well and get to know the people who come in. I have become incredibly proud of the area’s reputation.

It is good to see the Minister in her place. She will not have to answer any of the questions that I will pose, because she has no responsibility for them. I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, if I can, because what I say replicates what others have said, and what those who will speak afterwards will say. In Northern Ireland, we are no strangers to having different rules and different council policy. One issue that has become prevalent in more recent years is the antisocial behaviour of youths in Newtownards town centre. We deal with issues of antisocial behaviour every week, unfortunately, and they are critically important for my constituents, be the issue under-age drinking or graffiti.

[Margaret Ferrier]

A problem that has recently resurfaced in parts of my constituency is sectarian graffiti. The perpetrators of a recent spate of graffiti were identified, and they were only teenagers. Does the hon. Member agree that that behaviour can often be generational, and that angle should be given greater consideration?

[Jim Shannon]

As always, the hon. Lady makes a very apt intervention and I thank her for that. In my town of Newtownards, on the Ards peninsula, we have recently witnessed gang warfare, for want of a better description, in which graffiti has been prominent. It has been specific to many people and has been unhelpful, dangerous, vindictive and cruel. She is right to highlight graffiti and the role that needs to be played. At times, we ask: who is responsible for removing the graffiti? It is a very simple issue, but one that crops us. We usually find that the building’s owner paints over it, or if the graffiti is specific and nasty, the council can come out and remove it. So that becomes an issue.

Other problematic issues in my constituency are loitering, loud music and, in some rare cases, drugs. There is absolutely no place for that in our local communities. There is a street in my constituency called Court Street where there are a few derelict houses. On most weekends, there will be youths inside those homes drinking and blasting out music until the early hours; not to mention that the glass in the properties had to be broken at some stage, so there is a real health threat to the young people, too. The police and local councils have boarded up the windows numerous times, as have the owners. A local councillor who works in my office has been contacted out of hours and rung the police numerous times to make them aware of what was happening, but there does not seem to be any strategy to tackle the issue. We need better co-operation between local councils and police to ensure a better response, first, on the issue of building control and who is responsible for making the building safe, and secondly, so the police can give appropriate warnings and take relevant action, should this not stop.

I wish to put on record my thanks to the Police Service of Northern Ireland back home for what it does and, in particular, to the community police officers who do such great work. They interact with community groups, organisations and individuals, and that interaction has been incredibly helpful; on many occasions, it addresses the antisocial issues, and it builds the confidence and the relationship between the general public and the police. It also gives the police a better idea of who is involved.

Another issue in the town that has proven to be a major problem is suspected under-age drinking and drugs in local parks and leisure centres, which is also potentially dangerous for young children. I have highlighted that many times back home. Discarded bottles and sometimes other items, for want of a better description, are left in the children’s playground. It can be a mess of broken glass, takeaway wrappers, litter, cigarette butts and other things, and can also be dangerous.

Lastly, I have no doubt that in some cases parents are completely unaware of where their children are. I am a parent of three boys. They are well grown up now and I have six grandchildren, but we are no strangers to the fact that our children, in the past, fabricated, or could have fabricated, their whereabouts and what they were doing, because sometimes they did not want us to know. Parents can play a huge role in ensuring that their children are responsible and, if they are out and about on weekends, not creating a risk for themselves or other people by behaving antisocially.

I have a great relationship with my local policing team, which will frequently carry out patrolling checks in hotspots to deter any antisocial behaviour. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) referred to police hubs. That is one of the things we should look at. It was a wise and helpful intervention, which I think can make a difference. Could the Minister comment on that? I have mentioned before the relationship between councils and local police; there needs to be greater power for the two to work together. For example, councils should be able to renovate buildings that are being abused, and make real use of them to boost the local economy, forcing antisocial behaviour out.

I want to mention something that I think will be helpful for the Minister and which operates across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have a very active street pastors group. I have been involved with them from the very beginning, when a lady called Pam Williamson came to see me. I had always had an interest in them. It started because all the churches came together to address a social issue. It is the sort of reaching out that I love to see—I know that you would as well, Ms McVey. The churches see that they can do something practical on the streets. It was a local group, but it expanded from Newtownards across to Bangor, and down the Ards peninsula to Comber and elsewhere. It is really active and it brings together so many good people with good intentions, who go out at night and reduce antisocial behaviour. The figures have dropped, and that is one of the reasons why. The Minister may wish to refer to that in her speech, and the hon. Member for Keighley, who introduced this debate, may wish to refer to it in his wind-up.

I have seen what the group do. They offer people a bottle of water or a pair of sandals. They help young people who are unfortunately inebriated and do not know what they are doing, and get them home safely. How critical that is for ladies, women and young girls! It is critical for people to have someone there when they are feeling emotionally vulnerable. How important it is to ensure that parents know where their children are! Those are the things that street pastors do. I am a great supporter of street pastors. I think that all Members present have street pastors in their area who do marvellous work. They are an instrument that we can all use, because they have a deep interest in the community.

[Mrs Hamilton]

I absolutely agree. I have street pastors in my constituency. This is not their fault, but the problem with street pastors is that, because we lack the police and people from other local agencies to work with them, it is becoming unsafe at certain times of the day and night for them to do their valuable work. Given the lack of police and other services on the high street, does the hon. Member feel that the environment is safe enough for street pastors?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is difficult for me to answer that, because I cannot speak for other areas. I can speak only for mine, and I must say that in my constituency, the police are never too far away. The issue for street pastors is that they are not police. That is probably why they are approachable, which is one of their advantages. I know from my constituents that they have probably saved people from abuse and physical and other harm, and that they have got people home safely. Street pastors have a working relationship with the police, but they are not the police. They are there to help, and I think people recognise that; the street pastors’ years of involvement in this work on the streets of Newtownards, Bangor, the Ards peninsula, Comber and elsewhere in my constituency have shown that to be the case. The hon. Lady is right; street pastors need to be safe, but in my area, I think they are.

I conclude with this: these issues are prevalent in all constituencies across the United Kingdom. An antisocial behaviour plan has recently been introduced in England, which it seems will tackle the worst of antisocial behaviour in England. I am grateful to the Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect. What discussions could she have with our Department of Justice back home? I believe wholeheartedly that we can do things much better together, because this is a national issue. That is why the debate is important, and that is why I am speaking in it—not that I can necessarily add anything more for the Minister to reply to. I just wanted to let her know that we have some ideas in Northern Ireland. It is good to exchange those ideas, and thereby do better for everyone.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

We move now to the Front-Bench spokespeople.

10:24

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate. I will not stand here and say that everything is wonderful in Scotland. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), and there are issues in my constituency, too, many of them linked to local housing issues. In North Lanarkshire Council, police and local housing officials work closely together to solve those problems.

In spite of that, the Scottish Government actually recognise how much antisocial behaviour can, as many hon. Members have said this morning, blight people’s lives. The Scottish Government remain committed to tackling all forms of antisocial behaviour via legislation, and fixed penalty notices for things such as littering, which is another bad antisocial behaviour issue. I am reliably informed that there is no Scottish equivalent to section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour and Policing Act 2014, but we have our own Act—the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004—and some stringent operating procedures for police.

As in other parts of the United Kingdom, it is not always possible for police in Scotland to attend every incident of antisocial behaviour, because there is simply no capacity after 13 years of austerity. Importantly, according to the Scottish Community Safety Network, 12-year-olds living in the 20% most deprived areas, as measured by the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, are more likely than those in the 20% least deprived areas to have engaged in antisocial behaviour. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) asked, is antisocial behaviour about boredom? In some cases, it is simply about not having a decent life chance because of poverty.

Those living in more deprived areas, socially rented housing and urban areas are more likely to think that antisocial behaviour and neighbourhood problems are issues in their area. However, perceived levels of antisocial behaviour differ from actual levels, and that is a real issue as well. There is a lot of perception about antisocial behaviour. What is antisocial behaviour for one person is not always antisocial behaviour to someone else, and we need to look at things differently in some areas.

I reiterate that the root of the problem is a lack of resources for police, local authorities and organisations that help. In my area of Scotland, there are still street football leagues. The police in Scotland act differently, it is fair to say. They are much more community-based; there is a much wider sense in which they use consent to police their areas, and they work much more closely with local authorities. However, some of the great work they have been doing has been affected by real-terms cuts to funding, which is a huge pity.

In spite of the UK Government’s austerity cuts, Scotland still has a higher number of officers with better pay than at any time during the last Administration, and more police per head of population than England and Wales; that is a priority for the Scottish Government, and will continue to be. We have increased the number of police officers in Scotland, and they get paid about £5,000 more per annum as a starting salary. Also, fewer police officers resign voluntarily in Scotland because their conditions are better. The UK Government should look at that.

It is important that people look to not just the police to solve antisocial behaviour issues, but proper local organisations that work with police and other agencies. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about street pastors; we know what good work they do across the UK. Churches in my area are also involved in that good work. The whole thing comes down to money. I am probably the oldest Member present. I can remember when there was a zero-tolerance approach to any crime in New York; I believe it was in the 1980s. I think we all recognise, as we should, that small crimes can lead to larger crimes. We should not simply label that as antisocial behaviour at the outset. As well as providing support for victims, we need to provide outlets for younger people, who are mainly, but not always, the ones exhibiting antisocial behaviour. We need to look at what we do, take a zero-tolerance approach, and work with organisations to try to prevent such behaviour.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck was right to say that boredom leads to a lot of antisocial behaviour, but we cannot tackle antisocial behaviour at its root without adequate Government funding. Government funding in England will lead to Barnett consequentials for Scotland, so will the Minister talk about how the Government will improve funding to help to fight this scourge across the United Kingdom?

10:31

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) was able to secure this debate on an incredibly important topic. Perhaps we can forgive him for some of his colourful attacks on his Labour party colleagues because sometimes there is a direct correlation between an MP’s majority and the scale of their exaggerations against their opponents. However, the hon. Gentleman made some good points, and I agree 100% that antisocial behaviour is a plague that haunts many of our communities.

It is a shame that the Government have only recently woken up to the challenges of antisocial behaviour. I have attended debates at which Ministers have described antisocial behaviour as low level and not something they had chosen to prioritise in the past, and if Members look at the strategies that the Government have published in recent years, they will see that antisocial behaviour barely got a mention. The Labour party takes antisocial behaviour seriously. It is not low level; it is ruining lives.

[Robbie Moore]

I note that the shadow Minister says the Labour party takes antisocial behaviour extremely seriously. I am interested in her views on the selection of Labour party candidates for local elections. Does the Labour party think it appropriate to select candidates with previous convictions, such as a two-year suspended sentence, to stand for election to positions of responsibility?

[Sarah Jones]

I do not know about that particular case, but I do not think it acceptable that over the past 13 years the Government have not taken antisocial behaviour seriously and that the lives of people across the country have been ruined as a result. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps sad that he did not become a police and crime commissioner when he stood for election—I am sure he would have done an excellent job—but he cannot deny, and did not deny in his speech, the damage that has been done to our town centres and our communities over the past 13 years.

People across the country know exactly what antisocial behaviour feels like. They know what changes in their neighbourhood when community respect is worn down, and they know what broken Britain feels like. Parents worry about their children playing in the park or being targeted online. Pensioners worry about scams. Small businesses worry they will be targeted by thieves or vandals. Knife crime plagues communities, women feel less safe on the streets and antisocial behaviour ruins lives without consequence.

Labour’s driving mission is to deliver safer streets. If a family does not have a big house with a garden, the kids play on the streets, or hang out in the parks or the town centre, and it is vital that people feel they are safe enough to enjoy their local area. Criminal damage to shops, schools, leisure centres and businesses has increased by more than 30% in the past year alone. That is an extraordinary figure. There are 150 incidents of criminal damage to non-residential buildings a day. Antisocial arson went up 25% last year. Knife possession is up 15% on pre-pandemic levels. More than 6 million Brits are witnessing drug deals on their streets. That is 6 million people seeing drug dealing and drug taking on our streets.

Some town centres have been particularly hard hit by vandalism, harassment and abuse. Do not be fooled by the Government’s announcement today that they have met their arbitrary police recruitment target of 20,000. The Tories should hang their heads in shame that they decimated policing. Replacing some of the officers cut by the Government is not a victory. A press release will not suddenly make the public see police officers on the streets who are not there. Nobody will be fooled.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made a powerful speech about how people just want to see action; they want something done when a crime is committed. He rightly paid tribute to the police in his area. They are trying to do the right thing, but they do not have the resources. How insulted will they be when they hear the Home Secretary say in her speech today that the police need to stop concerning themselves with political correctness and get on with basic policing? It is nonsense that the police are not doing the things we want them to because of the way they approach their job. They are trying but they are massively overstretched. We have seen such cuts that it is very difficult for them to do the things that we all demand of them. They will not praise the Home Secretary for what she says today.

In her shocking 300-page report on the Met, Louise Casey made it really clear that visible neighbourhood policing is crucial to restoring confidence in police. Neighbourhood policing has been slashed. There are 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police and PCSOs on our streets today than there were eight years ago. The population has also increased, so we have fewer officers per person in this country by some margin than when the Tories came to power.

Charge rates are plummeting, victims are dropping out of the process in record numbers, the Conservative Government scrapped the major drug intervention programme that the last Labour Government had in place, and support services for kids have been decimated. YMCA says that £1 billion has been taken out of youth work across the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck mentioned, the police spend hours, if not days, dealing with mental health cases, simply because there is no one else to pick up the pieces. Community penalties have halved and there is a backlog of millions of hours of community payback schemes, not completed because the Government cannot even run the existing scheme properly.

Far from punishing perpetrators of antisocial behaviour, the Government are letting more and more of them off. The Conservatives weakened Labour’s antisocial behaviour powers 10 years ago, and brought in new ones that are barely used. They got rid of powers of arrest, despite being warned not to, and they introduced the community trigger, which is sadly something most people have not heard of. When polled, the public say there is no point in investing in improving the community if it is just going to be vandalised by criminals. It is impossible to level up without tackling crime.

Labour announced months ago our action plan to crack down on antisocial behaviour that blights communities. Respect orders will create a new criminal offence for adults who have repeatedly committed antisocial behaviour and are ignoring warnings by the courts and police. Labour will introduce new town centre patrols, and a mandatory antisocial behaviour police lead for every local neighbourhood, as part of our neighbourhood police guarantee, with 13,000 extra neighbourhood police and PCSOs.

We should, of course, pay tribute to the Welsh Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) did, for committing more PCSOs, because they are the eyes and ears on antisocial behaviour and can stop things escalating. They can find out the problems, they know people’s parents, they know where people live, and they can go round communities to stop antisocial behaviour escalating. The hon. Member for Keighley’s force, West Yorkshire police, has the second highest proportion of PCSOs by population in England, which I am sure he is pleased about.

We will bring tough action against town centre drug dealing, with tough powers for the police to shut down crack houses, and local neighbourhood drug teams to patrol town centres and lead data-driven hotspot policing targeted at common drug-dealing sites. We will introduce a national register of private landlords, and a duty for local partners to tackle antisocial behaviour, with mandatory antisocial behaviour officers in each area.

Under a Labour Government, if somebody wants to commit vandalism or dump rubbish on our streets, they had better be prepared to clean up the mess. We will bring in fixed-penalty cleaning notices and tough penalties for fly-tippers, and establish clean-up squads, where offenders will clear up litter, fly-tipping and vandalism that they have caused. The next Labour Government will not let another generation of lost boys and girls grow up without hope. That is why Labour will introduce full prevention and diversion programmes, with new youth mentors for the children and young people most vulnerable to crime, and access to mental health professionals in every school.

What are the Government proposing to do about the 13 years of neglect? Recently they called for hotspot policing, faster community payback, and stronger powers of arrest. That sounds familiar—because it is exactly what Labour has been calling for, and is already in Labour’s plans. However, the Government have left out the most important part, which is putting our neighbourhood police and PCSOs back on the streets. They are not investing in that. Labour’s plans to support victims have also been neglected. On the community trigger that is not working, the Government have decided to rename it, and they have re-announced plans on youth support that the Levelling Up Secretary announced more than a year ago.

The Government have said that 500 young people will get one-to-one support. There were 1.1 million incidents of antisocial behaviour last year. Supporting 500 people just will not cut it. The Government are still not changing their weakened enforcement powers on antisocial behaviour, and neighbourhood policing is not even mentioned in their action plan. The Minister knows that hotspot policing cannot be a replacement for neighbourhood policing. Neighbourhood teams made up of officers, PCSOs and specials are the eyes and ears of our communities. They are the Catherine Cawoods of policing. They know what is going on in their communities, and are trusted to understand and fix problems.

I hope that the Minister can answer a few questions. What is the plan for the police workforce now that the uplift programme has finished? Will she back Labour’s plan to put 13,000 more police officers, PCSOs and specials back in our neighbourhoods? Will she support Labour’s respect orders, so that the police can have the powers that they need to arrest and deal with persistent antisocial behaviour, and can she confirm whether cutting the number of PCSOs by half was a deliberate policy measure or just an accident of no planning?

Where the Conservatives have dismantled neighbourhood policing, Labour will bring it back. Where the Conservatives have weakened antisocial behaviour powers, Labour has a tough new plan to tackle it. Where the Conservatives forgot about our young people, Labour will prioritise them. Labour will revive the reassurance that if you are a victim of a crime, something will be done.

10:39

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) for securing the debate. He knows, as we all do, that these issues matter to a great many of our constituents in all parts of the country. Antisocial behaviour is a menace that must be reckoned with. It causes untold distress, concern, frustration and fear. It ruins people’s enjoyment of public spaces, and at worst it destroys lives and gnaws at the fabric of communities. It is totally unacceptable.

Town centres should be bustling and energetic, but they should also be safe. My hon. Friend mentioned Keighley bus station. Transport is crucial. People should be able to walk to get a bus or train, and his work in that area is really important. The Government are committing a large sum of money—an extra £2.5 million—for a pilot to extend transport safety officers. Conservatives feel very strongly about such issues.

No one should feel threatened when walking alone at night or during the day. Nor should they have to dodge litter or drug paraphernalia on the streets, endure persistent unruly behaviour or excessive noise, or see their local areas disfigured by graffiti and vandalism. Those are just a few of the many examples Members have raised of how antisocial behaviour manifests. Different areas have different problems, as is clear from Members’ contributions, but a recurring theme is the harm done to the physical environment and the impact on decent, law-abiding citizens, who suffer as a result of the actions of a selfish minority. Antisocial behaviour affects lives.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Dines]

I will make a little more progress first. Antisocial behaviour is not low level or minor, and I do not accept the characterisation that the Government view it as somehow petty. That is an unfortunate narrative. I am sure that we all agree that antisocial behaviour is very impactful on people’s everyday lives. We need to attack it head-on.

In relation to the police uplift, today’s debate is obviously very timely, for two reasons. At 9.30 this morning, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley was rising to start his remarks, the latest statistics on the police uplift programme were published. Let me confirm to hon. Members what those figures tell us. I am delighted to say—we should be proud—that from the end of March 2023, 20,951 additional police officers have been recruited from funding from the police uplift programme. That brings the current police officer head- count in England and Wales to 149,572, an increase of 3,542 compared with 2010.

The upshot is that there are now more police officers in England and Wales than at any point in history. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), is inaccurate in saying that that is not the case. We will have more police on the beat to prevent violence—more police out about in their communities, solving burglaries and, yes, tackling antisocial behaviour on the ground. It is of course for police forces to determine how they use their own money and the additional officers at their disposal. Let me say in response to some of the contributions we have heard that West Midlands police has closed 20 police stations and chosen to spend £33 million of its money refurbishing a head office. But there is no doubt that the police have a crucial role to play in tackling antisocial behaviour. A responsive and visible police presence can have a strong deterrent effect as well as helping to provide reassurance for communities.

This debate is timely for a second reason: it was only at the end of last month that the Government published their bold and ambitious action plan to tackle antisocial behaviour. The difference between our plan and Labour’s is that ours actually has some depth, narrative and detail. The hon. Member for Croydon Central will remember that detail and figures are really important.

As has been made clear today, constituents all over the country are sick and tired of antisocial behaviour. The Government hear their concerns and we are determined to step up the response. Our action plan will give police and crime commissioners and local authorities and their agencies the tools to stamp out antisocial behaviour across England and Wales. It targets the callous and careless few whose actions ruin public spaces and amenities on which the law-abiding majority want to depend.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The Minister mentioned the impact of antisocial behaviour on communities and she also mentioned transport. A big problem that we have is the antisocial noise from the exhausts of modified cars racing up and down our bypasses and through our town centres. Last April, the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), announced a pilot of noise cameras to capture that antisocial behaviour, but we have heard very little since. Will the Minister go back to the Transport Secretary to find out what is happening with the noise cameras and see whether they can be rolled out across the UK, because that antisocial behaviour is a major problem in Pontypridd and Taff-Ely?

[Miss Dines]

I am certainly willing to do that. Anecdotally, there are similar issues in my constituency of Derbyshire Dales, and I have written to the Transport Secretary myself in that regard. There are pilots, and I think there is a consideration as to whether there should be more.

The Government’s action plan outlines a radical new approach and is split across four key areas. There will be stronger punishment for perpetrators. The Opposition say that the Government have disregarded that, but that is not the case; the Government are going to bring forward stronger punishment for perpetrators. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) mentioned experiences of zero tolerance in the USA. There are historical and academic reasons why that is of interest and why it works in some areas and not in others, but the Government will introduce stronger punishment for perpetrators in this country.

We are cracking down on illegal drugs, making offenders repair the damage that they cause, increasing financial penalties, and evicting antisocial tenants. Drugs are harmful to health, wellbeing and security, and they devastate lives. That is why we have decided to ban nitrous oxide, known as laughing gas, which is currently the third most used drug among 16 to 24-year-olds. How many of us have stumbled across the canisters broken on the ground? That really is antisocial behaviour. The Government will put an end to the hordes of youths loitering in parks and littering them with empty canisters.

Furthermore, under our new plan, the police will be able to undertake drug testing of suspected criminals in police custody for a wider range of drugs, including ecstasy and methamphetamine—medical testing is moving onwards. They will test offenders linked to crimes such as violence against women and girls, serious violence, and antisocial behaviour. We will ensure that the consequences for those committing antisocial behaviour are toughened up. Our immediate justice pilots will deliver swift, visible punishment for those involved. Members who have contributed are right that we need to see more officers on the street, and the Government are delivering that.

Offenders will undertake manual reparative work that makes good the damage suffered by victims. I am pleased that the Opposition agree with that plan, which is part of their own plan. Communities will be consulted on the type of work undertaken, and the work should start swiftly—ideally, within 48 hours of notice from the police. Whether it is cleaning up graffiti, picking up litter or washing police cars while wearing hi-vis jumpsuits or vests, people caught behaving antisocially will have to make swift reparations to the community.

The upper limits of on-the-spot fines will be increased to £1,000 for fly-tipping, which I know is a scourge for many Members present, including my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. Another notable absence from the Labour party’s plan is proper figures. Facts and figures are really important, so we have announced that the fine for fly-tipping will be increased to £1,000, and to £500 for litter and graffiti. We will support councils to hand out more fines to offenders, with the money going back into local authority investment on activities such as cleaning up and enforcement, which is essential.

Nobody should have to endure persistent antisocial behaviour from their neighbours, which is why we plan to halve the delay between a private landlord serving notice for antisocial behaviour and eviction. We will also broaden the scope of harmful activities that can lead to eviction and make sure that antisocial offenders are de-prioritised for social housing.

Secondly, we are making communities safer. We are funding an increased police and other uniformed presence focused on antisocial behaviour in targeted hotspots where it is most prevalent. Initially we will support 10 trailblazer areas, before rolling out the hotspot enforcement across all forces in England and Wales. Hon. Members have mentioned their areas. Northumbria, West Midlands and South Wales police and crime commissioners will be piloting the enhanced hotspot response in 2023-24.

We will also replace the 19th-century Vagrancy Act with tools to direct vulnerable individuals towards appropriate support, such as accommodation, mental health or substance misuse services. We will criminalise organised begging, which is often facilitated by criminal gangs to obtain cash for illicit activity. We will prohibit begging where it causes blight and public nuisance, for example, where there are cashpoints, in shop doorways or when people are approached directly by someone in the street. We will also give police and local authorities the tools to address situations where rough sleeping is a public nuisance, such as the obstruction of doorways or the build-up of debris and tents, while ensuring that those who are genuinely homeless are directed towards appropriate help. We will build local pride in places by giving councils stronger tools to revitalise communities, bring more empty high street shops back into use, and restore local parks.

Youth have been mentioned by the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and prevention and early intervention is of course important. It is an issue on which we can all agree. We need to have young people properly engaged to steer them away from crime, which is why the Government have committed to the third strand of our plan: prevention and early intervention. Around 80% of prolific adult offenders begin committing crimes as children.

We are funding 1 million more hours of provision for young people in antisocial behaviour hotspots and expanding eligibility for the turnaround programme, which will support 17,000 children—not just 500, as has been suggested—who are on the cusp of the criminal justice system. Our £500-million national youth guarantee also means that, by 2025, every young person will have access to regular clubs, activities and opportunities to volunteer. It would be useful if all Members, including Opposition Members, read the Government’s antisocial plan, because it addresses many issues raised by all parties. Because we are funding 1 million more hours of provision for young people, that really is going to be a turnaround for them. We are working with youth offending teams, the Probation Service and local authorities to intervene very early on behalf of children at particular risk.

Fourthly, we will improve accountability. A new digital tool will mean that members of the public have a simple and clear way to report antisocial behaviour and receive updates on their case. We have also launched a targeted consultation on community safety partnerships, with the aim of making them more accountable and effective.

I am particularly interested in the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) from a Northern Ireland perspective. He is always insightful. Although the Government are putting such a lot of money into making streets safer, that is only possible with the assistance of the community. Sometimes the state is not very good at it, but the community is. It is only with the assistance of those working in the community—such as street pastors, who were mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton)—that we can move forward.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley for securing the debate and everyone who has participated. We can all agree that antisocial behaviour is a scourge, but it is all about how best to address it. I suggest that the Government, in a properly costed and thought-through way, have addressed the issue. It has been underlined again today just how enormously important tackling antisocial behaviour is to people up and down the country. The Government hear and understand those concerns, and we are acting on them. As I have set out, we are implementing a very wide-ranging, carefully thought-out plan that is backed by proper statistics, thought and planning. It is also backed by £160 million of funding, and it will bring benefits to every part of England and Wales, including town centres. As ever, our focus is on doing what is right for the decent, hard-working and law-abiding majority. We will do everything in our power to protect them from harm and to deliver them the safe and peaceful streets they deserve.

10:55

[Robbie Moore]

I thank all hon. Members who have participated in this important debate. Like them, I thank my local neighbourhood policing team. We all know how hard those teams work on the ground and that they face many challenges across our town centres, cities and villages.

It is very good to hear from the Minister that today we can announce that 20,951 extra police officers have been recruited since 2019—an uplift of 3,542 since 2010. I also thank the Minister for recognising the challenges that I have faced in Keighley bus station. I know that she will follow that through with interaction with West Yorkshire police in working out how to get to grips with some of those examples and other challenges that we all face. Without a doubt, it is important that the Government are being strong by introducing increased penalties, tougher sentences and swifter interaction between arrest, conviction and sentences coming to fruition.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for mentioning policing hubs, the importance of engaging police officers with constituency meetings, and a community buy-in and community partnership approach that works with our local authorities. Some antisocial behaviour issues are related to challenges that partnership-led approaches can deal with. I thank them for mentioning that, and I also thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for mentioning the specific issue of street drinking.

Of course, the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) all have Labour police and crime commissioners. It is disappointing to hear that the Labour PCC for the West Midlands is spending £33 million on refurbishing the office at Lloyd House rather than protecting 20 police stations. I see that in my constituency as well: a lack of prioritisation of what police officers should be focusing on because of a lack of direction and approach from our West Yorkshire Mayor, who does not have the right strategy.

It was disappointing that the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), could not answer my question about whether political party candidates’ previous convictions should be properly referenced. It is disappointing that the Labour party is putting up candidates who have previously had suspended prison sentences. On that note, I thank the Minister very much for her time in this debate on an important issue that we all want to raise.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of antisocial behaviour in town centres.

Abingdon Lodge Hill Junction and Local Infrastructure

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Abingdon Lodge Hill junction and local infrastructure.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I start by sincerely thanking the Minister for coming today. I am delighted to have secured this debate, because Lodge Hill junction is infamous among local people in and around Abingdon, but I rather expect less so in Westminster. For the uninitiated, I will explain why this is important.

Lodge Hill junction is between Abingdon and Oxford on the A34. The A34 is part of the strategic road network; it connects Oxfordshire to both the south and the north. Currently, the junction only has north-facing slips. That means that all the traffic from the north of Abingdon wishing to travel south to places such as Didcot, Newbury and Southampton has to pass through the centre of the town to the next junction that has southern-facing slips.

For well over 30 years, local people and politicians have been calling for the completion of the junction with south-facing slips. In that time there have been many promises made and broken by Governments. Frankly, local residents have all but lost hope that this is going to be completed. However, I am confident that today we can give them some hope.

The issue is primarily to do with funding, but before we get to that, I will set out why the scheme is vital to Abingdon and its surrounding areas. Abingdon-on-Thames is a delightful town. It is the oldest continuously occupied settlement in England, with a charming town centre and river frontage. I would encourage anyone to visit, if they have not already done so. However, residents are plagued by the sheer volume of traffic clogging up the town’s central arteries.

Lifelong Abingdon resident, Jim, told me:

“Abingdon is at breaking point with traffic and it’s only going to get worse”.

Another resident, Victoria, said:

“The traffic in this town is out of control! It makes shopping in town very unpleasant at certain times and it’s difficult for elderly residents to safely cross the road. It puts people off coming into town!”

The air pollution can be dangerous when traffic along Stert Street or Ock Street becomes gridlocked. The solution is clear to everyone involved. As my constituent, David, put it:

“Anything that can be done to stop cars having to come through town in order to get to the A34 will make Abingdon a safer and more attractive town for residents, and therefore better for businesses."

The scheme will also help boost active travel. The one- way system is usually at standstill during rush hour, which does not make for a pleasant cycle or commute to school or work. Local resident, David, told me:

“We try to walk around town whenever possible but the atmosphere is unpleasant and unhealthy with stationary traffic and exhaust fumes.”

Another constituent, Mary, said:

“As a cyclist I feel that there are already far too many cars in Abingdon and it worries me that there will soon be even more.”

Supporting active travel is a key part of local Liberal Democrat policy for Oxfordshire. Our councillors have worked tirelessly to ensure that the plans for Lodge Hill include cycle lanes and pedestrian crossings. Less traffic flowing through the town centre will encourage more people to cycle and walk into the town, and the changes to the junction itself will improve connections with surrounding villages. I know that residents in Sunningwell and Kennington are concerned that the completion of the junction will lead to their roads becoming a rat run. I want to assure those residents that I am working with the county council to ensure that that does not happen.

The issue where Lodge Hill is absolutely critical is building. An unpopular local plan, adopted by the then Conservative-led district council in 2017, planned for 1,100 homes to be built in north and north-west Abingdon, with an additional development of 1,200 homes planned at Dalton Barracks. That was part of a wider plan to build 100,000 homes across Oxfordshire, which was pushed very hard by the Government. Local Liberal Democrats raised concerns at the time, and a major part of those concerns was that local infrastructure needed to be improved before the large housing developments were completed. That is what the Conservatives promised residents at the time, but sadly it was not delivered. After a huge community campaign, plans for the developments in north Abingdon included, on the planning application, a Grampian condition stating that no more than 400 homes could be occupied before this junction is improved.

The houses have started to go up. If people come to Abingdon, they will see that we have diggers everywhere. That is causing its own problems, but the houses are happening—they are coming. Residents in the area look on, and see more and more houses springing up and being occupied, but we are not seeing improvements to the infrastructure. Carol, who lives in north Abingdon, said:

“I am very much in favour of housing in my backyard but am worried there is…little in the way of infrastructure”.

I think she speaks for many. Another resident, Patricia, said:

“I did not think the noise and disruption would have begun so early and before the construction of the new slip road! As far as I understood the negotiation process, this was a condition of the ‘Deal’”.

Should the Lodge Hill scheme be delayed, the proposed development of 1,200 homes at Dalton Barracks would also be in trouble, and so would the other 700 homes proposed for Abingdon. That is 1,900 more homes in the local plan that are reliant on this scheme. The Minister knows very well what happens when we fail to meet targets set by local plans. I hope that, with her help today, we can avoid any more delay, because that is critical.

More important is the intense frustration felt by the whole community about the broken promise to deliver infrastructure ahead of the development. I do not blame residents for that frustration—frankly, I share it—because if we look at the history of the funding announcements in particular, it has been a story of overpromising and underdelivering. Back in 2017, the Government did commit £9.5 million of funding from what was then the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. At the time, and notwithstanding our wider concerns about infrastructure, I and my Lib Dem colleagues of course welcomed that commitment, but we expressed a level of scepticism about the funding materialising. The then Conservative leader of Oxfordshire County Council said in response:

“It won’t fall through. A lot of people are being very disingenuous saying that.”

But sadly we were right, and fall through it did.

Last year, the Department dropped the funding, apart from the £1.87 million that had already been spent. I nearly cried, because as soon as I was elected in 2017 I made it my top priority to help to deliver this scheme—it was in my maiden speech. Since then I have raised it in relation to countless issues—in debates on infrastructure and the Oxford to Cambridge expressway, in oral questions, in countless letters to many different Secretaries of State and in numerous written questions asking for updates and pressing for funding. I have attended every available ministerial surgery that I could, sent countless emails and had meetings with Highways England. I pressed, year on year, for Government to bring forth the money. I am sorry to say that, while I was doing that, the county council seemed to give up.

It took an historic change in Oxfordshire—May 2021 saw the Lib Dems at the helm of the county council—for the project to again become a priority locally. I am pleased to report that, in October 2022, thanks to the hard and persistent work of local Lib Dem councillors, a planning application for the scheme was submitted to the county council. A decision is expected in June this year—it is just a few weeks away. This is the furthest that Lodge Hill junction has ever progressed. In a recent meeting, county council leader Liz Leffman confirmed that the council is literally shovel-ready and raring to go, so if the rest of the funding is not secured by June, it will be the Government holding up the process, and I am confident that that is not what they want to do.

I will break this down. The scheme costs £33 million in total. Some £6.5 million of section 106 money from the developers is now secured. As I mentioned, we already had the £1.8 million-odd from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and that has been spent. We also have £12 million of funding allocated as part of the growth deal; that is theoretically in place, and I hope the Minister will release it to the county as soon as possible. But there remains a £13 million gap. The county council is in discussion with Homes England about unlocking that piece. I was disappointed to see in the response to my written questions this week that the Secretary of State has not engaged—yet—with Homes England on the issue. My ask of the Minister is to please help me do that, although if she could do it herself, that would be even better. Imagine—over 30 years of promises would be fulfilled if we delivered this.

It may feel like this is just a junction, but it is not; it has become an allegory of why we cannot trust Government to deliver for people. Today we have an opportunity to change that for thousands of people. This proposal has been talked about, cross-party, for years. Local people are tired of their voices being ignored, and frustrated at promises being broken, but the Minister can help to fix that today. It is high time that this Conservative Government listened to the people of Abingdon, made good on their promise to release the funding for Lodge Hill and delivered the infrastructure that will make the lives of the residents and businesses of England’s oldest town better.

11:11

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to listen to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) as she ably sets out her case on Lodge Hill junction. She has been an assiduous representative, and I am happy to work with her. I will set out the position, as she said, and provide a little more context.

I am grateful for the chance to talk about what the Government are doing to back these ambitions through significant funding for local leaders of all parties in Oxfordshire. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon sketched out a little of the landscape and the political colours involved, and it is fair to say that everybody needs to work together in these times to deliver these significant infrastructure projects, which have such a huge impact on her constituents. The Government stand firmly behind local leaders, in Oxfordshire and elsewhere, through upcoming measures such as legislative changes supporting sustainable housing growth.

I think the hon. Lady started from 30 years ago, but I will not go quite that far back—I will go back just to 2017. Oxfordshire has long been pivotal to the UK economy, with nationally significant assets and world-leading strengths in science and innovation. That was underlined by the critical role played by its university and research facilities in the development of the covid-19 vaccine. Its success is central to cementing our whole country’s reputation as a science superpower, which is one of the Prime Minister’s key priorities, and our wider ambitions to level up innovation and opportunity throughout the country.

We agree with the hon. Member that a lack of affordable housing could make it harder for the area to attract and retain talent when competing in a global market. That is why the Government have gone to such lengths to drive housing and growth in Oxfordshire. In March 2017, the Government agreed a £215 million housing and growth deal with Oxfordshire councils to deliver 100,000 homes, including more affordable housing, as well as infrastructure improvements to support sustainable development across the county. That underlines our commitment to championing local leaders, who are rightly elected to represent their local communities and dedicated to tackling the challenges facing their areas. It is right to put those local communities in the driving seat when it comes to making decisions about how best to allocate taxpayer resources that have been allocated to them from central Government.

That deal is just the start. Oxfordshire is also benefiting from £107 million of housing infrastructure funding for the A40 smart corridor scheme and £35 million of local growth funding for the Oxford science transit project, which will unlock substantial infrastructure investment along the key corridor west of Oxford. I do not think anybody can claim that this Government are not backing Oxford’s ambitions for its local economy.

I will turn specifically to the Lodge Hill junction, which the hon. Lady discussed in a lot of detail. She is absolutely right to highlight the concerns of local residents, who rightly want to see infrastructure delivered. In the main, they do support housing, because they understand the need for it, but they make the case every time that the infrastructure must be there. That is also the position of the Government. The project that the hon. Lady talked about is to deliver an upgraded interchange on the A34 trunk road north of Abingdon-on-Thames—a new, grade-separated dumb-bell junction. I am not a transport expert, but I am sure people listening to the debate will know exactly what I mean when I say that. It is a junction over the A34 on the A4183 Oxford Road, with new south-facing slip roads on and off the A34. That is required, along with pedestrian, cycle and traffic-calming works and a lay-by on the A34.

The existing Lodge Hill junction provides northbound on-slip and southbound off-slip only, which means that all residents of north Abingdon who commute to and from major employment centres including Didcot, Milton Park science and technology park, and Harwell science and innovation campus, or to the M4 and beyond, travel through Abingdon’s historic town centre to the Marcham interchange to the south to access the A34, causing congestion and delay. I understand the frustration of the hon. Lady’s residents, which she has described.

This long-standing strategic highway project has been included in successive local transport plans and is supported by Vale of White Horse District Council. The responsibility for delivering the scheme lies with Oxfordshire County Council, subject to technical approval from National Highways. Oxfordshire County Council—as you might be aware, Ms McVey, and as I understand it—is run by a coalition involving a working arrangement between the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Green party.

In autumn 2022, my Department asked Homes England to explore whether the funding shortfall that had emerged could be funded from the brownfield, infrastructure and land fund. The latest is that the business case for that brownfield, infrastructure and land fund programme is expected to be submitted shortly to the Treasury for final approval.

It is right to pause for a second to reflect on what we are talking about. May I gently correct the hon. Lady? This is not a question of the Government blocking funding. Funding is required beyond the initial business case. That needs to be met from somewhere, and we all understand, as we have seen it across the country, that sometimes infrastructure projects are delayed for covid or other reasons, and costs go up. When that happens, naturally, and as we would expect, a responsible Government and a responsible Department must undertake discussions around the business case. After all, we are talking about taxpayers’ money.

If we were to find a shortfall for a project in the hon. Lady’s area, the money would have to be taken from a project somewhere else. No doubt the residents of that area would ask why £13 million, or whatever the figure, had been taken from their project, which they, too, desperately needed, and been allocated to a project in the hon. Lady’s area. It is right that the Treasury and the Government take a responsible view.

Those discussions are taking place and, as I understand it, there are cost estimates in the project plan. I am happy to have further meetings with the hon. Lady on that point because I understand that there is an awful lot of detail involved and it is not possible for us to get into it here. We do not have the time to consider the detail of a project of such long standing.

The hon. Lady referred to Homes England, which is continuing to engage with Oxfordshire County Council and Vale of White Horse District Council to achieve some of the clarifications required to develop the business case. That involves, as I think she said, agreeing an approach to grant recovery via developer contributions and clarifying other elements of the scheme.

The hon. Lady is right to point to the link with the housing project, because the funding for the junction unlocks further funding for the houses that are required to be built. There are wider transport and economic benefits, and we do not want much-needed future housing to be blocked for any reason, least of all with respect to important transport infrastructure.

I will draw my remarks to a close unless the hon. Lady wants further clarification in the time remaining.

[Layla Moran]

indicated dissent.

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady is indicating that she does not seek further clarification. Therefore, I thank her once again.

I am happy to have a meeting in the Department with the relevant people so we can see what else we can do. I would encourage the hon. Lady to work with her local partners—lots of local authorities are involved in this process—because they bear a responsibility to do their part and to get the much-needed business cases in place so we can all work collaboratively.

Question put and agreed to.

11:19

Sitting suspended.

Artificial Intelligence and the Labour Market

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Maria Miller in the Chair]

[Relevant document: Tenth Report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, Post-pandemic economic growth: UK labour markets, HC 306.]

14:30

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I am grateful to all hon. Friends and Members who have taken the time to participate in this important debate. It is a particular pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) in his place. I wish to draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The rapid advance of artificial intelligence technology poses a severe threat to the labour market and to workers’ rights. The negative effect of AI on the workforce cannot be ignored, as it has the potential to displace jobs, lead to economic inequality and erode the rights of workers. AI has the capability to automate jobs and various industries, which could result in widespread unemployment and exacerbate existing socioeconomic disparities. Low-skilled workers, who are already vulnerable to exploitation, are likely to be the most impacted, leading to a growing divide between the haves and the have-nots.

Furthermore, the implementation of AI in the workplace could result in the violation of workers’ rights such as privacy, autonomy and fair pay. The use of AI to monitor and control workers could lead to increased exploitation, discrimination and the creation of a toxic work environment. If left unchecked, the rise of AI could lead to a future where workers are replaced by machines, and human dignity is sacrificed for the sake of corporate profits. The deployment of AI in the workplace must be accompanied by strong regulations and policies that prioritise the wellbeing and rights of workers.

Governments and companies must take responsibility for the harmful impact of AI on the labour market and take immediate action to prevent its negative effects. Failure to do so would result in an irreparable loss of jobs, economic inequality and a violation of workers’ basic rights.

For Members who have heard me speak before in this House, that introduction must have felt unusually stilted, or perhaps uncharacteristically eloquent. That is because it was written entirely by ChatGPT—one of a number of increasingly sophisticated AI chatbots that have become readily accessible in the past few months. At this point, let me reassure my parliamentary researcher, who is watching this debate, that he does not need to worry about his P45—yet. The unusual distinction of being the first Member of Parliament to openly read AI-generated text into Hansard belongs to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). Like him, I have chosen to turn to one of the most widely used AI-powered technologies to illustrate the rapid advances taking place in the field of artificial intelligence, and the potentially devastating consequences that this could have on workers in every sector of the economy.

Of course, the impacts of this AI revolution will be felt far beyond the labour market. Information is an increasingly valuable commodity; it is also a potential weapon of war. The danger is simple: technologies such as ChatGPT and DALL-E could be used to proliferate dangerous misinformation and subvert our already compromised democracy. We need further and extensive scrutiny of the risks and of the steps that we need to take to better protect our constituents’ data privacy.

I have chosen to use the limited time available today to look at the impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market, and particularly on workers’ rights. That is not only because I have spent my adult life fighting for workers’ rights, but because it is in the labour market that that change is happening most rapidly, and it is in the everyday experience of work that the disruption of AI is being most keenly felt.

We have heard much in recent years about how we stand on the edge of a fourth industrial revolution. That revolution is now well under way; its effects will be profound and far-reaching. Every part of our public life will be transformed. I want to be clear: I am no enemy of progress. We should embrace the potential of AI to change our lives for the better, whether by improving diagnosis and treatment of disease or by driving sustainable economic growth that can benefit us all. Just as the first industrial revolution brought about an era of unprecedented wealth for an elite few but condemned the British working class and colonised people across the world to a life of precarity and poverty, the AI revolution will create again—if we allow it to do so—a world of winners and losers.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making an impressive speech and extremely good points about the welfare of workers. As a union rep, I agree that we must have safeguards around AI developments. Does he agree that in order to make this new technology available to all, we should seek to level up across the UK and ensure that coding opportunities and the jobs of the future are available to young people in all areas, including deprived areas?

[Mick Whitley]

The hon. Member makes a good point. When it comes to AI, all workers need protections.

Research by PricewaterhouseCoopers suggests that AI will be responsible for 46% of the UK’s long-term output growth. It promises job creation in sectors such as health, education, and science and technology. At the same time, it threatens devastating job losses in sectors such as manufacturing, transport and public administration. Some 7% of all UK jobs could be automated away within the next five years, and as many as 30% could disappear within 20 years.

The last time we experienced systemic economic displacement on anything like that scale was during the deindustrialisation of the 1980s and 1990s. The architects of that policy believed that nothing should be done to support those communities that carried the cost of the economic and social fallout, the legacy of which my constituency of Birkenhead continues to live with to this day. They followed the ancient mantra that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. We must not repeat that mistake again. I have called today’s debate to make an urgent plea for a rights-based and people-focused approach to artificial intelligence, and for a process that puts the voices and interests of workers at its heart. In this new machine age, we must assert more than ever the fundamental right of all people to a basic level of economic security and dignity at work.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, much of which I support. It is not controversial to suggest that the NHS would benefit from more doctors or that digital tech has the potential to improve people’s lives. The Health and Social Care Committee has been looking at both of those issues. As part of one of its inquiries, the Committee went to San Francisco about a month ago to look at how AI can help in medicine. We found that computers can be taught to read mammograms of breast screening tests. That means that, rather than having to be read by two independent doctors, the mammograms can be read by one doctor and one computer. Apparently, the process is more accurate than one involving two computers or, indeed, two doctors. Therefore, AI has the potential not just to cause the workforce issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, but to benefit areas with workforce shortages.

[Mick Whitley]

I thank the hon. Member for those points. I have already said that we must embrace AI and what it does for us. We are not here to stop progress, but my point is that the Government need to build in regulatory rights and protections.

The benefits of this new technological revolution must be shared by everyone, not just an elite few. I do not claim to have the answers to a challenge of such enormous magnitude—I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ thoughts in a few moments’ time—but a starting point must surely be guaranteeing support to those sectors and communities that will be most affected by the threat and reality of economic displacement. That means strengthening our collective social security net and seriously considering the role that a universal basic income might play in ensuring a decent standard of living in a labour market increasingly characterised by job scarcity. It means investing in skills and lifelong learning, ensuring that workers whose employment is lost to AI have the opportunity to find well-paid and similarly rewarding work.

In any democracy we have to recognise that technology is never ideologically neutral. Every technological system reflects the interests and biases of its creators and funders. Our challenge is to ensure that AI technologies reflect a multiplicity of voices, including those of workers, and not just in their application but in their conception and design as well. I hope we will continue to discuss how we can achieve that.

A people-focused approach to AI must also mean doing more to guarantee the rights of those workers who are already working alongside artificial intelligence and related technologies in their workplace. The AI working group set up by the Trades Union Congress surveyed thousands of workers in producing its report on the worker experience of AI and associated technologies. It shows vividly how workers are increasingly managed by machines, how their rights and autonomy are being steadily eroded, and how automated processes often perpetuate human prejudice when making decisions on employees’ performance, hiring and promotions.

The Government’s response was set out in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s recently published AI White Paper, which advocates a light-touch approach and effectively leaves the market to regulate itself. Although Ministers have devised five fundamental principles that should inform the adoption and use of AI in workplaces, they do not intend to place those principles on a statutory footing. Instead, the implementation of those principles will be left to underfunded and overstretched regulators, such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

That contrasts starkly with the models adopted by other developed economies. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act is likely to be one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation ever passed on this subject, while California—the very centre of global technology innovation—is preparing to implement measures to protect the privacy and civil liberties of workers. These measures include a new office for AI, with the authority to guide the development of new automated systems, as well as statutory restrictions on the use of automated decision making in the workplace.

The proposal set out by the TUC’s AI manifesto, copies of which I have brought to Westminster Hall for Members today, involves taking a very different position from that taken by the Government. Building on the existing framework of equalities legislation, it calls for a rights-based approach to manage the transition to AI that would strengthen equality protections, guarantee workers the right to human contact and require a human review of high-risk decisions that have been automated, and protect the right to disconnect for all workers. It is also absolutely right to acknowledge the need to listen to workers—their voices and their experiences—in managing this transition. It is essential that we recognise and value the role of trade unions as a vehicle for getting those voices heard.

It is for those reasons that the manifesto proposes a statutory duty for employers to consult trade union representatives before adopting AI and associated technologies. It is also why the manifesto urges employers to agree collective agreements with unions to govern the use of AI in the workplace.

Last December, when I questioned the then Business Secretary—the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps)—on the merits of introducing a statutory duty to consult, he expressed interest and offered to meet me to discuss it further. I think the Minister present today will remember that, and I am interested to hear whether he and the new Business Secretary share the right hon. Gentleman’s interest.

Finally, the manifesto emphasises the fact that workers’ participation can be achieved only if workers understand the processes and technologies at work. In environments in which decisions are increasingly dictated by machines, people need to know, more than ever, what data is being held on them and how it is used.

I am aware that time is short and I look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ contributions. I will conclude my remarks by saying that on 17 May I will introduce a ten-minute Rule Bill that builds on the TUC’s important work and which I hope will bring us a bit closer to the rights-based approach I am advocating and which we urgently need. I ask any colleagues interested in supporting that Bill to speak to me after this debate.

14:44

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Dame Maria, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), both on securing this very important debate and on his excellent speech.

Artificial intelligence is an enabling technology. It is driving the digital age, but it is based on a series of points of data that are gathered by computer systems and processed in order to make decisions. It still requires a huge amount of human intervention in determining what data will be drawn on and therefore what decisions should be made. Consequently, there has to be a level of human responsibility, as well.

We can see already from the development of AI that it is not just question of computer systems learning from existing patterns of behaviour; they are also effectively thinking for themselves. The development of AI in chess is a good example of that. Not only are AI systems learning to make the moves that a human would make, always selecting the perfect combination and, therefore, being much more successful. When given the command to win the game, AI systems have also developed ways of playing that are unique, that the human mind has not thought of or popularised, and that are yet more efficient at winning. That is very interesting for those interested in chess. Perhaps not everyone is interested in chess, but that shows the power of AI to make autonomous decisions, based on data and information it is given. Humans invented the game of chess, but AI can learn to play it in ways not thought of by humans.

The application of AI in the defence space is even more scary, as touched on by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. AI-enabled weapons systems can be aggressive, make decisions quickly and behave in unpredictable ways. The human strategist is not able to keep pace with them and we would require AI-driven defence systems to protect ourselves from them. It would be alarming to live in a world where aggressive technology driven by AI can be combatted only by AI, with no human intervention in the process. It is scary to think of a security situation, like the Cuban missile crisis in the 1960s, where the strategies are pursued solely by AI. Therefore, we will have to think as we do in other areas of warfare, where we have bans on certain types of chemical weapons. There are certain systems that are considered so potentially devastating that they will not be used—there are moratoriums on their use and deployment. When thinking about AI in the defence space, we may well have to consider what security to build into it as well. We also need to think about the responsibility of companies that develop AI systems just for their commercial interests. What responsibility lies on them for the systems that they have created?

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that this is like an industrial revolution. With industrial revolutions comes great change. People’s ways of living and working can be disrupted, and they are replaced by something new. We cannot yet say with certainty what that something new could be. There are concerns, which I will come to in a moment, about the regulation of AI. There could be amazing opportunities, too. One can imagine working or classroom environments where children could visit historical events. I asked someone who works in education development how long it could take before children studying the second world war could put on a headset, sit in a virtual House of Commons and watch Winston Churchill deliver one of his famous speeches, as if they were actually sitting there. We are talking about that sort of technology being possible within the next decade.

The applications for learning are immense. Astronauts who practise going to the international space station do so from metaverse-style, AI-driven virtual spaces, where they can train. At the same time as we think about the good things that it can do, we should also consider the fact that very bad spaces could be created. In our debates on the Online Safety Bill, we have been concerned about abusive online behaviour. What if such abusive behaviour took place in a video chatroom, a virtual space, that looks just as real as this room? Who would be responsible for that?

It is beholden on the companies that develop these new technologies and systems to have responsibility for the output of those systems. The onus should be on the companies to demonstrate that what they are developing is safe. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right to set out in the Budget statement last year that the Government would fund a new AI sandbox. We have seen AI sandboxes developed in the EU. In Washington state in the United States, AI sandboxes are used to research new facial recognition technologies, which is particularly sensitive. The onus should be on the developer. The role of the regulator should be to say, “There are certain guidelines you work within, and certain things we might consider unsafe or unethical. You develop your technologies and new systems and put them through a sandbox trial. You make it easy for the regulator to ask about the data you are drawing from, the decisions the system you have put in place is making, the outcomes it is creating and whether they are safe.”

We have already seen that learned behaviour through data can create unfair biases in systems. There was a case where Amazon used AI to sift through CVs for recruitment. The AI learned that it was largely men hired for the roles, and therefore discarded the CVs of women applying for the position because it assumed they would not be qualified. We should be concerned about biases built into data systems being exacerbated by AI.

Some people talk about AI as if it is a future technology—something coming—but it exists today. Every one of us experiences or interacts with AI in some way. The most obvious way for a lot of people is through the use of apps. The business model of social media apps is driven by recommendation, which is an AI-driven system. The system—Facebook, TikTok, Instagram or whatever it is—is data profiling the user and recommending content to keep them engaged, based on data, and it is AI driving those recommendation tools.

We have to be concerned about whether those systems create unfair practices and behaviours in the workplace. That is why the hon. Member for Birkenhead is right to raise this issue. If a gig economy worker—a taxi driver or a delivery courier—is paid only when they are in receipt of jobs on the app, does the app create a false incentive for them to be available for work all the time? Do they have to commit to being available to the app for most of the day, because if they do not it drives the work to people who have high recommendation scores because they are always available? Do people who cannot make themselves available all the time find that the amount they can earn is much less, if they do not get paid for waiting time when they use such apps? If that becomes the principal way in which a lot of tasks are driven, AI systems, which are built to be efficient and make it easy for people to access the labour market, could create biases that favour some workers over others. People with other jobs or family commitment, in particular, might not be able to make themselves available.

We should consider not just the way the technology works but the rights that citizens and workers have if their job is based on using those apps. The employer—the app developer—should treat the people who work for them as employees, rather than as just freelance agency workers who happen to be available at any particular time of the day. They have some sort of working relationship that should be honoured and respected.

The basic principle that we should apply when we think about the future of AI and its enormous potential to create growth and new jobs, and build fantastic new businesses, is that the rights that people enjoy today—their rights as citizens and employees—should be translated into the future world of technology. A worker should not lose their working rights simply because their relationship with their employer or their customer is through an app, and because that experience is shaped by the collection and processing of data. Ultimately, someone is doing that processing, and someone has created that system in order to make money from it. The people doing that need to be responsible for the technology they have created.

14:52

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing it. I wanted to apply for it myself—he beat me to the chase, which is a wonderful thing.

Before I became an MP, one of my final clients was in the AI space. It dealt with artificial intelligence and psychology—I believe that my first entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests was my final bit of work for it—so I have seen this technology evolve over many years. We often talk about technology revolutions, but this has been an incredibly fast evolution.

We are seeing Moore’s law, which related to the size and scale of technology, affect society. The scale of what is happening right now is both inspirationally amazing and terrifying at the same time. It will absolutely shape the job market and the type of jobs that come through over the next few years. It will shape how people interface with their co-workers, with technology, with society and with politicians. It will affect every aspect of our lives.

I am particularly concerned about the use of artificial intelligence for deception. I have long said—not necessarily in the Chamber, so I put it on the record now—that there should be in law something that I would call the Turing clause. It would mean that when technology is used to deceive somebody into believing that they are talking to a real person or engaging with a real business, whether for entertainment or for any other purpose—for instance watching a deepfake, which is perhaps for entertainment purposes—it must be crystal clear to them that they are being deceived.

I will give some examples. I was recently speaking to somebody who works in the entertainment industry, running studios where they record sound, voiceovers and music. They said—I should declare that I do not know the scale of this issue and have not looked into the numbers—that lot of the studios are often being used to record voiceovers for AI companies, so that the AI can learn how to speak like a real person. We all know about fraud and scams in which somebody gets phoned up from a call centre and told, “Your insurance is up,” or by someone pretending to be from the Government. We saw, awfully, during the covid crisis how those horrible people would try to scam people. Doing that requires a number of people in a space.

Now imagine that AI can pretend to be somebody we know—a family member, for instance—and imitate their voice. It could call up and say, “I need some money now, because I am in trouble,” or, “I need some support.” Or it could say, “This is somebody from the Government; your tax affairs are an issue—send your details now.” There are a whole load of things going on in society that we will not know about until it is too late. That is why a Turing clause is absolutely essential, so that we are ahead of the curve on deception, deepfakes and areas where technology will be used to fool.

One incredibly important area in relation to the labour market that is not often talked about is the role of AI in creativity. DALL-E 2 is one of the tools, and there are many others popping up now. They can create artwork and videos almost at the speed of thought—typing in a particular phrase will create amazingly beautiful pictures—but they are pooling those from places where real artists and real musicians, with particular styles, have contributed. That is then presented as AI creativity. That could kill the graphic design industry. It could prevent people who are in the early stages of life as an artist, in both the visual and music worlds, from ever having an opportunity to be successful.

Just recently, Drake and the Weeknd—if I have those artists correct—had a song that was put online. I think that it even went on Spotify, but it was definitely on some streaming services. Everybody thought, “Gosh, this is a fantastic new collaboration.” It was not. It was AI pretending to be both of those artists with a brand new song. Artificial intelligence had created it. It was not until after the fact, and after the song had been streamed hundreds of thousands of times, that the big music companies said, “Hang on—that isn’t real. We need to stop this.” Then it was stopped.

In the case of social media, it took us many years to get to the fantastic Online Safety Bill. I was very fortunate to be on the Draft Online Safety Bill Joint Committee. Its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), is in the room today, and he did a fabulous job. Getting to that point took 10 or 15 years. We do not have 10 or 15 months to legislate on AI. We probably do not have 10 or 15 weeks, given where we will be in a matter of days, with the new announcements and tools that are coming out.

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those extremely important points. Just last week, we had the Children’s Parliament at the all-party parliamentary group on the metaverse and web 3.0. The children were excited about the opportunities of AI and the metaverse, and we were told on the day that the World Economic Forum predicts that technology will create 97 million new jobs by 2025 alone. But like the hon. Gentleman, they were also very concerned about what is real and what is not, and they were concerned about the mental health impact of spending much of the day in an altered reality setting. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need much more research into the mental health impact on staff and young people who are engaged in AI?

[Dean Russell]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments. Mental health is a passion of mine—I had a ten-minute rule Bill about ensuring that mental health first aiders are in the workplace—and I agree wholeheartedly. We saw that in evidence given to the Draft Online Safety Bill Joint Committee; Rio Ferdinand talked, including in his documentary, about the fact that what is said online can affect a person’s real life. The challenge with artificial intelligence is that it will not just be able to say those things; it will probably know precisely how to do the most harm, how to hit the right triggers to make people buy things and how to fool and deceive people to ensure they hand over money or their rights.

I will move on because I am conscious of time. I know we have quite a long time for this debate, but I do not intend to use it all; I promise. I think that the creativity part is absolutely essential. A few weeks ago, I predicted in Parliament that, in the next year or so, a No. 1 song will be created by artificial intelligence for the first time. I have no doubt that a No. 1 bestselling book will be written by artificial intelligence. I have no doubt that new songs in the voices of artists who are no longer around, such as Elvis Presley, will be released, and that actors who are sadly no longer alive will play starring roles in new films. We are seeing this already on a soft scale, but it is going to become more and more pervasive.

It is not all negative. I do not want to be a doomsayer. There are great opportunities: Britain—this wonderful country—could be the home of identifying and delivering transparency within those industries. We could be the country that creates the technology and the platforms to identify where artificial intelligence is being used; it could flag up when things are not real. It could, for example, force organisations to say who they are, what they are doing and whether they have used artificial intelligence. I think that will create a whole new world of labour markets and industries that will stem from this country and create all the jobs that we talked about earlier.

I am also concerned that we do not often talk in the same breath about artificial intelligence and robotics. In the industrial world, such as in warehouses and so on, there has been a rise in the use of robotics to replace real people. Office jobs are changing due to artificial intelligence. The role of accountants, of back-office staff and of both blue and white-collar workers will change.

As was stated earlier, the challenge with robotics is on things such as defence. Artificial intelligence is being used in robotics to get way ahead of the scale of where we are now. We really need to take that seriously. ChatGPT was probed. People tried to catch it out on different aspects of its response. When asked how it would steal the nuclear codes, it outlined how it would do it. I am not trying to give any bad actors out there any ideas, but it explained how it would use AI to control drones, and how they would be able to go in and do certain things. Hopefully, it got it all wrong. However, if AI is in not just our computers and mobile phones, but in drones and new robots that are incredibly sophisticated, incredibly small and not always identifiable, we need to be really wary.

There are many positives, such as for detection in the health sector and for identifying things such as breast cancer. Recently, I have seen lots of work about how artificial intelligence could be layered on the human aspect and insight, which was mentioned earlier, and enable the identification of things that we would not normally be able to see.

There is huge positive scope for using data. I have said previously that, if we were to donate our health data to live clinical trials in a way that was legitimate and pseudonymised, artificial intelligence could be used to identify a cure for cancer and for diseases that have affected our society for many centuries. In the same way that it has found new ways of playing chess, it might find new ways of changing and saving lives. There is great opportunity there.

Many years ago, I wrote an article called, “Me, Myself and AI”. In it, I commented on areas where AI is dangerous, but I also mentioned opportunities for positives. I would like to make one final point on this: we must also make sure that the data that goes into the AI is tracked not only for things such as royalties in creative industries, but for bias. I wrote an article on that a while ago. If we take a sample, say within a health context, and take that data based on only one ethnicity or demographic, the AI will develop options and solutions for that group. If we do not have the right data, regarding diversity, going into the analysis, we risk not being able to identify future issues. For example, sickle cell disease might get missed because the data that the AI is using is based only on clinical trials with white people.

There is a wide-ranging issue about what is being fed into the systems around AI and how we ensure that we identify where AI is being used—hence my point about a Turing clause when it comes to deception. We also need to know where it is being used, including in Government. We need to look at the opportunities, too: whole new industries around how we monitor AI, apply it and use the science of it.

AI is already there in the spelling of “Great Britain”. We have a great opportunity to be ahead of the curve, and we need to be because the curve will be moving beyond us within a matter of weeks or months—and definitely within years.

15:06

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Dame Maria, and to take part in this particularly timely debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on securing it.

I begin by declaring a rather tenuous interest—a constituency interest of sorts—regarding the computing pioneer Alan Turing. The Turing family held the baronetcy of Foveran, which is a parish in my constituency between the north of Aberdeen and Ellon. Although there is no evidence that Alan Turing ever actually visited, it is a connection that the area clings to as fastly as it can.

Alan Turing, of course, developed what we now know as the Turing test—a test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. One of the developments to come closest to that in recent times is, of course, ChatGPT, which several speakers have mentioned already. It is a natural-language processing tool driven by AI technology, which has the ability to generate text and interact with humans.

The hon. Member for Birkenhead was a bit braver than I was; I only toyed with the idea of using ChatGPT to produce some of my speech today. However, I was put off somewhat by a very good friend of mine, with an IT background, using the ChatGPT interface to produce a biography of me. He then shared it with his friendship group on Facebook.

I think it is fair to say that it shows up clearly that if ChatGPT does not know the answer to something, it will fill the gap by making up something that it thinks will sound plausible. In that sense, it is maybe no different from your average Cabinet Minister. However, that does mean that, in subject areas where the data on which it is drawing is rather scant, things can get quite interesting and inventive.

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. When AI systems such as that are asked questions that they do not know, rather than responding, “I don’t know,” they just make something up. A human is therefore required to understand whether what they are being showed is correct. The hon. Gentleman knows his own biography better than ChatGPT does, but someone else may not.

[Richard Thomson]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He has perhaps read ahead towards the conclusion of my speech, but it is an interesting dichotomy. Obviously, I know my biography best, but there are people out there, not in the AI world—Wikipedia editors, for example—who think that they know my biography better than I do in some respects.

However, to give the example, the biography generated by AI said that I had been a director at the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, and, prior to that, I had been a senior manager at the National Trust for Scotland. I had also apparently served in the Royal Air Force. None of that is true, but, on one level, it does make me want to meet this other Richard Thomson who exists out there. He has clearly had a far more interesting life than I have had to date.

Although that level of misinformation is relatively benign, it does show the dangers that can be presented by the manipulation of the information space, and I think that the increasing use and application of AI raises some significant and challenging ethical questions.

Any computing system is based on the premise of input, process and output. Therefore, great confidence is needed when it comes to the quality of information that goes in—on which the outputs are based—as well as the algorithms used to extrapolate from that information to create the output, the purpose for which the output is then used, the impact it goes on to have, and, indeed, the level of human oversight at the end.

In March, Goldman Sachs published a report indicating that AI could replace up to 300 million full-time equivalent jobs and a quarter of all the work tasks in the US and Europe. It found that some 46% of administrative tasks and even 44% in the legal professions could be automated. GPT-4 recently managed to pass the US Bar exam, which is perhaps less a sign of machine intelligence than of the fact that the US Bar exam is not a fantastic test of AI capabilities—although I am sure it is a fantastic test of lawyers in the States.

Our fear of disruptive technologies is age-old. Although it is true to say that generally what we have seen from that disruption is the creation of new jobs and the ability to allow new technologies to take on more laborious and repetitive tasks, it is still extremely disruptive. Some 60% of workers are currently in occupations that did not exist in 1940, but there is still a real danger, as there has been with other technologies, that AI depresses wages and displaces people faster than any new jobs can be created. That ought to be of real concern to us.

In terms of ethical considerations, there are large questions to be asked about the provenance of datasets and the output to which they can lead. As The Guardian reported recently:

“The…datasets used to train the latest generation of these AI systems, like those behind ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion, are likely to contain billions of images scraped from the internet, millions of pirated ebooks”

as well as all sorts of content created by others, who do not get reward for its use; the entire proceedings of 16 years of the European Parliament; or even the entirety of the proceedings that have ever taken place, and been recorded and digitised, in this place. The datasets can be drawn from a range of sources and they do not necessarily lead to balanced outputs.

ChatGPT has been banned from operating in Italy after the data protection regulator there expressed concerns that there was no legal basis to justify the collection and mass storage of the personal data needed to train GPT AI. Earlier this month, the Canadian privacy commissioner followed, with an investigation into OpenAI in response to a complaint that alleged that the collection, use and disclosure of personal information was happening without consent.

This technology brings huge ethical issues not just in the workplace but right across society, but questions need to be asked particularly when it comes to the workplace. For example, does it entrench existing inequalities? Does it create new inequalities? Does it treat people fairly? Does it respect the individual and their privacy? Is it used in a way that makes people more productive by helping them to be better at their jobs and work smarter, rather than simply forcing them—notionally, at least—to work harder? How can we be assured that at the end of it, a sentient, qualified, empowered person has proper oversight of the use to which the AI processes are being put? Finally, how can it be regulated as it needs to be—beneficially, in the interests of all?

The hon. Member for Birkenhead spoke about and distributed the TUC document “Dignity at work and the AI revolution”, which, from the short amount of time I have had to scrutinise it, looks like an excellent publication. There is certainly nothing in its recommendations that anyone should not be able to endorse when the time comes.

I conclude on a general point: as processes get smarter, we collectively need to make sure that, as a species, we do not consequentially get dumber. Advances in artificial intelligence and information processing do not take away the need for people to be able to process, understand, analyse and critically evaluate information for themselves.

[Dean Russell]

This is one point—and a concern of mine—that I did not explore in my speech because I was conscious of its length. As has been pointed out, a speech has been given previously that was written by artificial intelligence, as has a question in Parliament. We politicians rely on academic research and on the Library. We also google and meet people to inform our discussions and debates. I will keep going on about my Turing clause—which connects to the hon. Gentleman’s point—because I am concerned that if we do not have something like that to highlight a deception, there is a risk that politicians will go into debates or votes that affect the government of this country having been deceived—potentially on purpose, by bad actors. That is a real risk, which is why there needs to be transparency. We need something crystal clear that says, “This is deceptive content” or “This has been produced or informed by AI”, to ensure the right and true decisions are being made based on actual fact. That would cover all the issues that have been raised today. Does the hon. Member share that view?

[Richard Thomson]

Yes, I agree that there is a very real danger of this technology being used for the purposes of misinformation and disinformation. Our democracy is already exceptionally vulnerable to that. Just as the hon. Member highlights the danger of individual legislators being targeted and manipulated—they need to have their guard up firmly against that—there is also the danger of people trying to manipulate behaviour by manipulating wider political discourse with information that is untrue or misleading. We need to do a much better job of ensuring we are equipping everybody in society with critical thinking skills and the ability to analyse information objectively and rationally.

Ultimately, whatever benefits AI can bring, it is our quality of life and the quality of our collective human capital that counts. AI can only and should only ever be a tool and a servant to that end.

15:16

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. This has been a thoughtful and engaging debate on an important subject, and the contributions have raised very important issues.

I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for introducing this debate. I thought his opening remarks about me were uncharacteristically generous, so I had a suspicion that it did not all come from him—if he wants to blame the computer, that’s fine! As he did, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend has a long history in the workplace and has seen how automation has changed work—particularly the kind done at Vauxhall Motors in Ellesmere Port—dramatically over many years. What we are talking about today is an extension of that, probably at a greater pace and with greater consequences for jobs than we have seen in the past.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said there will be winners and losers in this; that is very important. We must be cognisant of sectors affected by AI where there will probably be more losers than winners, including manufacturing, transport and public administration. My hon. Friend hit the nail on the head when he said that we must have a rights-based and people-focused approach to this incredibly complicated subject. He was right to refer to the TUC paper about the issue. We cannot go far wrong if we hold to the principles and recommendations set out there.

The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) made an excellent contribution, showing a great deal of knowledge in this area. He is absolutely right to say that there has to be a level of human responsibility in the decision-making process. His references to AI in defence systems were quite worrying and sounded like something from the “Terminator” films. It sounds like dramatic science fiction, but it is a real, live issue that we need to address now. He is right that we should ensure that developers are able to clearly demonstrate the data on which they are basing their decisions, and in saying that the gig economy is a big part of the issue and that the intervention of apps in the traditional employment relationship should not be used as a proxy to water down employment rights.

The hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) also gave a very considered speech. He summed it up when he said that this is both amazing and terrifying. We have heard of some wonderful things that can be done, but also some extremely worrying ones. He gave examples of deception, as well as of the wonderful art that can be created through AI, and encapsulated why it is so important that we have this debate today. Although the debate is about the potential impacts of AI, it is clear that change is happening now, and at a dramatic pace that we need to keep up with; the issue has been affecting workers for some time now.

When we survey the Government’s publications on the impact of AI on the market, it is readily apparent that they are a little bit behind the curve when it comes to how technologies are affecting the way work is conducted and supervised. In the 2021 report, “The Potential Impact of Artificial Intelligence on UK Employment and the Demand for Skills”, and the recent White Paper that was published last month, there was a failure to address the issues of AI’s role in the workplace. The focus in both publications was the bigger picture, but I do not think they addressed in detail the concerns we have discussed today.

That is not to downplay the wider structural economic change that AI could bring. It has the potential to have an impact on demand for labour and the skills needed, and on the geographical distribution of work. This will be a central challenge for any Government over the next few decades. As we have heard, the analysis already points in that direction, with the 2021 Government report estimating that 7% of jobs could be affected in just five years and 18% in 10 years, with up to 30% of jobs over 20 years facing the possibility of automation. That is millions of people who may be displaced in the labour market if we do not get this right.

I will focus my comments on the impact on individual workers, because behind the rhetoric of making the UK an AI superpower, there are statements about having a pro-innovation, light-touch and coherent regulatory framework, with a desire not to legislate too early or to place undue burdens on business. That shows that the Government are, unfortunately, content to leave workers’ protections at the back of the queue. It is telling that in last month’s White Paper—a document spanning 91 pages—workplaces are mentioned just three times, and none of those references are about the potential negative consequences that we have touched on today. As we are debating this issue now, and as the Minister is engaged on the topic, we have the opportunity to get ahead of the curve, but I am afraid that the pace of change in the workplace has completely outstripped the pace of Government intervention over the last number of years.

It has been four years since we saw the Government’s good work plan, which contained many proposals that might help mitigate elements of AI’s use in the workplace. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me mention the employment Bill, which has been promised on many occasions and could have been an opportunity to consider some of these issues. We need an overarching, transformative legislative programme to deal with these matters, and the many other issues around low pay and chronic insecurity in the UK labour market—and we need a Labour Government to provide that.

With an absence of direction from Government, there is already a quiet revolution in the workplace being caused by AI. Workers across a broad range of sectors have been impacted by management techniques derived from the use of artificial intelligence. The role of manager is being diluted. Individual discretion, be it by the manager or worker, has in some instances been replaced by unaccountable algorithms. As we have heard, such practices carry risks.

Reports both in the media and by researchers have found that workplaces across a range of sectors are becoming increasingly monitored and automated, and decisions of that nature are becoming normalised. A report on algorithmic systems by the Institute for the Future of Work noted that that is ultimately redefining work in much narrower terms than can be quantified by any algorithm, with less room for the use of human judgment. Crucially, the institute found that workers were rarely involved in or even consulted about these types of data-driven technologies. The changes have completely altered those people’s experience of work, with greater surveillance and greater intensification, and use in disciplinary procedures. Members may be aware that there is now a greater use of different varieties of surveillance, including GPS, cameras, eye-tracking software, heat sensors and body-worn devices, so the activities of workers can be monitored to an extent that was hitherto unimaginable.

Of course, surveillance is not new, but the way it is now conducted reduces trust, and makes workers feel more insecure and as if they cannot dispute the evidence that the technology tells people. Most at risk of that monitoring, as the Institute for Public Policy Research has said, are those in jobs with lower worker autonomy, those with lower skills, and those without trade union representation. The latter is an area where the risk increases substantially, which tells us everything that we need to know about the importance of becoming a member of a trade union. The news today that the GMB is making progress in obtaining recognition at Amazon is to be welcomed in that respect.

Increased surveillance and monitoring is not only problematic in itself; it can lead to an intensification of work. Testimony from workers in one study stated that they are expected to be conducting work that the system can measure for 95% of the working day. Time spent talking to colleagues, using the bathroom or even taking a couple of minutes to make a cup of tea will not be registered as working, and will be logged for a manager to potentially take action against the individual. That pressure cannot be conducive to a healthy workplace in the long run. It feels almost like automated bullying, with someone monitoring their every move.

Many businesses now rely on AI-powered systems for fully automated or semi-automated decision making about task allocation, work scheduling, pay, progression and disciplinary proceedings. That presents many dangers, some of which we have talked about. Due to the complexities in the technology, AI systems can sometimes be a trusted black box by those who use them. The people using them assume that the outcome that emerges from the AI system is free of bias and discrimination, and constitutes evidence for the basis of their decisions, but how does someone contest a decision if they cannot question an algorithm?

As we have heard, there is potential for algorithmic bias. AI technology can operate only on the basis of the information put into it. Sometimes human value judgments form the basis of what is fed into the AI, and how the AI analyses it. As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe mentioned, there are some famous examples, such as at Amazon, where AI was found to be systematically disconsidering women for particular job applications because of the way the algorithm worked. There is little transparency and a lack of checks and balances regarding how the technology can be used, so there is a palpable risk of AI-sanctioned discrimination running riot without transparency at the forefront.

I would like the Minister to commit to looking at how the technology works in the workplace at the moment, and to making an assessment of what it is being used for and its potential to discriminate against people with protected characteristics. The Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill will create new rights where wholly automated decision making is involved, but the question is: how will someone know when a fully automated decision has been taken if they are not told about it? Is there not a risk that many employers will slot into the terms and conditions of employment a general consent to automated decision making, which will remove the need for the person to be notified all together?

A successful AI strategy for this country should not be built on the back of the poor treatment of workers, and it is the Government’s role to create a legal and regulatory environment that shields workers from the most pernicious elements of these new technologies. That cannot be fixed by introducing single policies that tinker at the edges; it requires a long overdue wholesale update to our country’s employment laws. As the Minister will know, our new deal for working people will set out a suite of policies that address that. Among other things, it will help to mitigate the worst effects of AI, and will introduce measures that include a right to switch off, which will guard against some of the egregious examples of AI being used to intensify people’s work.

As the organised representation of the workforce, trade unions should be central to the introduction of any new technologies into the workplace. Not only will that enable employers and their representatives to find agreeable solutions to the challenges raised by modern working practices, but it will encourage more transparency from employers as to how management surveillance and disciplinary procedures operate. Transparency has been picked up a few times and it is key to getting this right.

Artificial intelligence’s impact is already being felt up and down the country, but the Government have not been quick enough to act, and its worst excesses are already out there. The need for transparency and trust with technology is clear, and we need to make sure that that has some legislative backing. It is time for a Labour Government to clear that up, stand up for working people and bolster our labour market so that new technologies that are already with us can be used to make work better for everyone.

14:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I am grateful to be called, Dame Maria, and it is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on bringing this timely subject forward. I thought it would be appropriate to type his question into ChatGPT. I put in, “What is the potential impact of AI on the labour market?” It said, “AI has the potential to transform many aspects of the economy and society for the better. It also raises concerns about job displacement and the future of work.” That is it in a nutshell. It did not say that it was time for a Labour Government.

[Justin Madders]

Did the AI tell the Minister that the Conservative Government have got everything right?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have not actually posed that question, but perhaps I could later.

This is an important debate, and it is important that we look at the issue strategically. The Government and the Labour party probably have different approaches: the Labour party’s natural position on this kind of stuff is to regulate everything as much as possible, whereas we believe that free markets have had a tremendous effect on people’s lives right across the planet. Whether we look at education, tackling poverty or child mortality, many of the benefits in our society over the last 100 years have been delivered through the free market.

Our natural inclination is to support innovation but to be careful about its introduction and to look to mitigate any of its damaging effects, and that is what is set out in the national AI strategy. As we have seen, it has AI potential to become one of the most significant innovations in history—a technology like the steam engine, electricity or the internet. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said exactly that: this is like a new industrial revolution, and I think it is a very exciting opportunity for the future. However, we also have key concerns, which have been highlighted by hon. Members today. Although the Government believe in the growth potential of these technologies, we also want to be clear that growth cannot come at the expense of the rights and protections of working people.

Only now, as the technology rapidly improves, are most of us beginning to understand the transformative potential of AI. However, the technology is already delivering fantastic social and economic benefits for real people. The UK’s tech sector is home to a third of Europe’s AI companies, and the UK AI sector is worth more than £15.6 billion. The UK is third in the world for AI investment, behind the US and China, and attracts twice as much venture capital investment as France and Germany combined. As impressive as they are, those statistics should be put into the context of the sector’s growth potential. Recent research predicts that the use of AI by UK businesses will more than double in the next 20 years, with more than 1.3 million UK businesses using AI by 2040.

The Government have been supporting the ethical adoption of AI technologies, with more than £2.5 billion of investment since 2015. We recently announced £100 million for the Foundation Models Taskforce to help build and adopt the next generation of safe AI, £110 million for our AI tech missions fund and £900 million to establish new supercomputer capabilities. These exascale computers were mentioned in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. These developments have incredible potential to bring forward new forms of clean energy, and indeed new materials that can deliver that clean energy, and to accelerate things such as medical treatment. There are exciting opportunities ahead.

If we want to become an AI superpower, it is crucial that we do all we can to create the right environment to harness the benefits of AI and remain at the forefront of technological developments. Our approach, laid out in the AI White Paper, is designed to be flexible. We are ensuring that we have a proportionate, pro-innovation regulatory regime for AI in the UK, which will build on the existing expertise of our world-leading sectoral regulators.

Our regulatory regime will function by articulating five key principles, which are absolutely key to this debate and tackle many of the points that have been made by hon. Members across the Chamber. Regulators should follow these five principles when regulating AI in their sectors: safety, security and robustness; transparency and explainability; fairness; accountability and governance; and contestability and redress. That feeds into the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who held this ministerial position immediately prior to myself, about deception, scams and fraud. We can all see the potential for that, of course.

Clearly, right across the piece, we have regulators with responsibility in those five areas. Those regulators are there to regulate bona fide companies, which should do the right thing, although we have to make sure that they do. For instance, if somebody held a database with inappropriate data on it, the Information Commissioner’s Office could easily look at that, and it has significant financial penalties at its disposal, such as 4% of global turnover or a £17 million fine. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford made a plea for a Turing clause, which I am, of course, very happy to look at. I think he was referring to organisations that might not be bona fide, and might actually be looking to undertake nefarious activities in this area. I do not think we can regulate those people very effectively, because they are not going to comply with anybody’s regulations. The only way to deal with those people is to find them, catch them, prosecute them and lock them up.

[Damian Collins]

The Minister talks about safety, but does he agree that that has to be safety by design, and not just having response mechanisms built into the system so that a victim can appeal? I know he has looked at fraud a lot in the past, and there is a presumption that all will be done to combat fraud at its known source, rather than just providing redress to victims.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is absolutely right. We will not deal with everything in the world of AI in this respect, but there needs to be overarching responsibility for preventing fraud. That is something we have committed to bringing forward in another legislative vehicle—the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is passing through Parliament now—but I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be a responsibility on organisations to prevent fraud and not simply deal with the after-effects.

Our proposed framework is aligned with and supplemented by a variety of tools for trustworthy AI, such as assurance techniques, voluntary guidance and technical standards. The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation published its AI assurance road map in December 2021, and the AI Standards Hub—a world-leading collaboration led by the Alan Turing Institute with the National Physical Laboratory and the British Standards Institution—launched last October. The hub is intended to provide a co-ordinated contribution to standards development on issues such as transparency, security and uncertainty, with a view to helping organisations to demonstrate that AI is used safely and responsibly.

We are taking action to ensure that households, public services and businesses can trust this technology. Unless we build public trust, we will miss out on many of the benefits on offer. The reality is that AI, as with other general-purpose technologies, has the potential to be a net creator of jobs. I fully understand the points raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead—of course, we do not want to see swathes of people put out of work because of this technology. I hasten to add that that has never been the case with other technologies. There have been many concerns over the ages about how new technologies will affect jobs, but they tend to create other jobs in different sectors. The World Economic Forum estimates that robotics, automation and artificial intelligence will displace 85 million jobs globally by 2025, but create 97 million new jobs in different sectors, which I will discuss in a second. I think the hon. Member for Birkenhead asked in his speech whether I would be willing to meet him to discuss these points; I am always very happy to do that, if we can convene at another time.

The hon. Member also raised the point about how AI in the workplace has the potential to liberate the workforce from monotonous tasks such as inputting data or scanning through documents for a single piece of information. I will address the bigger concerns he has around that, but in the public sector it would leave teachers with more time to teach, clinicians with more time to spend with patients and police officers with more time on the beat, rather than being behind a desk.

As was raised in a salient point by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, AI also has tremendous potential in defence and national security. That is absolutely critical. It was interesting that leading people in the world of technology, led by Elon Musk, recently wrote a letter asking for a six-month pause while we look at how we can properly moderate the impacts of AI. I am not sure that that is a good idea, because I am not sure China and Russia would play that game. It is important that we stay ahead of the curve, for exactly the reasons pointed out by my hon. Friend.

[Damian Collins]

The Minister is exactly right. That initiative also suggests that AI is not yet here but, actually, the issues we have discussed today exist already. We can look at them already; we do not need a six-month pause to do that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is absolutely right. There is an opportunity but also a potential threat. It is important that we continue to invest, and it is great that the UK is ahead of the game in its investment, behind only the US and China, which are obviously much bigger economies.

The key thing is that we take action on skills, skilling up our workforce in the UK to take advantage of the potential of AI. Clearly, a good computing education is at the heart of that. We have overhauled the outdated information and communications technology curriculum and replaced it with computing, and invested £84 million in the National Centre for Computing Education to inspire the next generation of computer scientists. Our national skills fund offers to do just that, with free level 3 qualifications for adults and skills bootcamps in digital courses, including coding, AI and cyber-security, available across England.

On that point, as well as the opportunities in AI, we need to look at the new opportunities in the new economy. Some jobs will be displaced, so we need to ensure that we are skilling up our workforce for other opportunities in our new economy, be it data science or green jobs with the green jobs taskforce. Recently, in Hull, there were 3,000 new jobs in the wind turbine sector with a starting salary of £32,000, which illustrates the potential for green jobs in our economy. So although jobs might be displaced, others, hopefully better-paid jobs will replace them. We want a higher-wage, higher-skilled economy.

The Government are also supporting 16 centres for doctoral training, backed by an initial £100 million, delivering 1,000 PhDs. We expanded that programme with a further £117 million at the recent launch of the Government’s science and technology framework. Last year, we invested an additional £17 million in AI and data science postgraduate conversion courses and scholarships to increase the diversity of the tech workforce, on top of the £13 million that has been invested in the programme since 2019-20. We also invested £46 million to support the Turing AI fellowships to attract the best and brightest AI talent to work in the UK.

The point about protections for workers’ rights was raised by many Members in the debate, not least the hon. Members for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and for Birkenhead; the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders); and my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe and for Watford. It is important to see the Government’s position on workers’ rights here. We are bolstering workers’ rights, raising the national living wage, with the highest increase on record—a near 10% increase—and six private Members’ Bills that increase workers’ rights, including on flexible working and other issues. There is also the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill, which is the favourite Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, who was its sponsor prior to becoming the Minister.

On the concerns many raised about workplace monitoring, we are committed to protecting workers. A number of laws are already in place that apply to the use of AI and data-driven technology in the workplace, including in decision making, which was raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The Equality Act 2010 already requires employers and service providers not to discriminate against employees, job applicants and customers. That includes discrimination through actions taken as a result of an algorithm or a similar artificial intelligence mechanism. Tackling discrimination in AI is a major strand of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s three-year strategy. Existing data protection legislation protects workers where personal data is involved, and that is one aspect of existing regulation on the development of AI systems and other technologies.

Reforms as part of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill will cast article 22 of the UK GDPR as a right to specific safeguards, rather than as a general prohibition on solely automated decision making. These rights ensure that data subjects are informed about, and can seek human review of, significant decisions that are taken about them solely through automated means, which was a point raised by the shadow Minister. Employment law also offers protections. The Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that employees with two years of continuous service are protected from unfair dismissal, which would encompass circumstances where employees’ article 8 and UK GDPR rights have been breached in the algorithm decision-making process that led to the dismissal.

Of course, all good employers—by their very nature—should use human judgment. The best way we can help employers in any workplace is to have a strong jobs market where employers have to compete for employees. That is the kind of market we have delivered in this economy, despite some of the difficulties that surround it.

I once again thank the hon. Member for Birkenhead for tabling this timely and important debate. To be clear again, we have a strong ambition for the UK to become a science and technology superpower, and AI is a key part of that. However, the Government recognise the concerns around these technologies and appreciate that, as with all new technologies, trust has to be built. We will continue to build our understanding of how the employment rights framework operates in an era of increasing AI use. AI has the potential to make an incredibly positive contribution to creating a high-wage, high-skill and high-productivity economy. I very much look forward to seeing the further benefits as matters progress.

15:48

[Mick Whitley]

I thank Members for their contributions this afternoon, which were eloquent and well put. It is good that we are bringing this issue to the seat of power—the seat of Government—so that Ministers understand our fears. While we embrace AI, there must be built-in protections for people because not all employers are good employers. There are some bad employers about who will take advantage of AI. We need safeguards for workers and people being replaced by machines. At the end of the day, this issue is coming down our street, so we will need to revisit it again and understand it better.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market.

15:49

Sitting suspended.

Rail Services: Carshalton and Wallington

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

15:58

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

I will call Elliot Colburn to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the normal convention for a 30-minute debate.

15:59

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered rail services in Carshalton and Wallington constituency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. This is not the first time that I have had to raise rail provision in the Carshalton and Wallington constituency, and I am sure it will not be the last. First of all, I thought it might be useful for me to outline the situation that my constituents currently face when it comes to local public transport provision. Being situated in a London borough—the London Borough of Sutton—many people will assume that Carshalton and Wallington is incredibly well-connected in its public transportation. However, if anyone looked at my own casework inbox, they would see that that is far from the case.

Broadly, the borough has an average public transport accessibility level, or PTAL, of just 2, with parts of my constituency ranking at level 1 or even zero. What is more, Sutton continually ranks at the bottom of connectivity surveys and is the only London borough not to have access to an underground, overground or Crossrail station. As you can imagine, Dame Maria, that puts enormous strain on the existing public transport network, especially the rail service, which is not helped by the limited bus system.

The strain is felt across all four local train stations: Carshalton, Wallington, Hackbridge and Carshalton Beeches. It is not just the gap at Hackbridge station—I will talk more about that later—that my constituents have to consider, but the gap in overall service. That is because trains running through these stations take commuters north to central London, particularly London Bridge and Victoria, and south to Sutton, Epsom, Dorking, Horsham and further afield. Even before the pandemic, many of the peak services would already be at capacity by the time they reached one of our local stations, and well before they reached their intended destination. I had not been in this place for long before lockdown, but emails from constituents attested to cramped and uncomfortable journeys. I had experienced such journeys myself, as someone who used to commute from those stations. Indeed, I now commute every day to this place.

Fast forward to today, and post pandemic the situation is largely unchanged, just with fewer trains. Despite the return to user levels reminiscent of pre-lockdown levels—at least, that seems to be the case—commuters in Carshalton and Wallington still have to face very cramped peak-time trains.

I have met representatives from Govia Thameslink Railway—the parent company of both Southern and Thameslink, which operate in our four stations—and from Network Rail, and I have brought up the need for more trains to call at Carshalton and Wallington stations during peak times. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the work the Government are doing to hold rail providers to account and bring back a full return to pre-pandemic services, and indeed to build upon them.

There are other issues that affect rail provision and the ability to boost the number of trains that can run effectively and on time, or even at all. For residents of Carshalton and Wallington, the train timetable tells one story, but the reality on the station platforms tells a very different one. Our lines are bedevilled with cancellations because of broken trains, a lack of drivers or signalling faults; at least, those are the reasons we are given. I hope that the Minister can shed some light on the work that the Government are doing to tackle those issues.

The other thing I find slightly confusing is that a reason that is often given for not reinstating peak service train timetables in the morning is that more people use the rail service at the weekend, and yet many of my constituents say that at weekends they cannot get a train and have to use replacement bus services, because engineering works are taking place. That becomes incredibly difficult, and I find it very confusing why engineering works cannot be done more efficiently.

I want to touch on infrastructure in a bit more detail. Much of the existing infrastructure is outdated and unreliable, which often means that trains that are scheduled to run are unable to do so, or that there are slower turnaround times for those that can run. Indeed, the infrastructure on the railway network in south London is preventing what is known as the metroisation of suburban rail services in London—the “turn up and go” service that we experience on the London overground. I know that there is an ambition to bring that to some national rail services, particularly in suburban London. With the infrastructure as it is, it is just not possible to achieve that.

I know the Government are already doing a number of things to try to ensure that not just Carshalton and Wallington residents, but the whole country, can reach its connectivity potential. Those things include electrification, digital signalling and better co-ordination between operators and Network Rail, the latter of which would hopefully alleviate many of the problems that we face with frequent service disruption. I would be grateful for an update from the Minister as to where we are in better fulfilling those connectivity challenges through advancements and improvements.

One of the biggest problems preventing us from having a more regular rail timetable is congestion on the railway line. That all comes down to the Selhurst junction—the so-called Croydon bottleneck. Network Rail has drawn up the Croydon area remodelling scheme to try to alleviate congestion at that junction, which is the main junction of the Brighton main line and suburban south London. Not only will the knock-on effects allow more trains and more frequent and reliable services on the Brighton main line, but suburban south London, including Carshalton and Wallington, will be able to run more trains, and more effective and longer trains. If finally implemented, the bottleneck scheme could not only unlock capacity in the south but improve economic output. I would be grateful if the Minister gave an update on the Government’s position on the Croydon bottleneck scheme and what can be done to reignite its potential.

While I fully accept that solutions to some of these issues may take some time to implement, some issues can be dealt with a lot more quickly. Even if more trains appeared on our timetables overnight, there would still be the issue of the trains calling at our stations, particularly Hackbridge and Carshalton Beeches stations. I have spoken to the Minister about this before, so I hope he will forgive me for repeating it. Hackbridge station has two main problems. First, it can only accommodate seven cars, when most of the trains that go through it at peak times have eight cars or more. If the platform were extended to accommodate at least eight cars—preferably 10— it would mean more safety for commuters waiting on that platform, particularly in the morning when the northbound platform towards central London can get very cramped.

Secondly, the southbound platform at Hackbridge has a very serious safety concern at the front end, where the gap between train and platform is so big that it has led to a number of accidents involving constituents falling in that gap, and stalling the rail network as a result. Thankfully, GTR and Network Rail have agreed to lower the level of the track to make it safer. However, they have not committed to completing that work until 2027. I do not think that is fast enough, because this is a very serious safety concern. The gap is so big that even a ramp is an unsafe alternative for those who have mobility problems. I am concerned about someone really hurting themselves by falling down the gap. That has happened already; we have avoided something incredibly serious, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.

At Carshalton Beeches station we have connectivity problems, because the southbound platform does not have step-free access. I have applied many times to the Access for All fund to try to make that right. Those who are travelling back to Carshalton Beeches from central London or other parts of the rail network have to carry on through to Sutton, change platforms and then come back to Carshalton Beeches to disembark safely. As someone who passionately believes that the rail network should be accessible to all, I do not think that those with mobility problems should be subjected to that. What opportunities might there be to apply for the funding to finally make all four of my local stations completely step-free, both northbound and southbound.

In a debate about public transport in my constituency, it would be remiss of me not to mention the ultra-low emission zone. Although it is not directly related to rail services, there is a problem here connected to public transport provision. My constituents are faced with the real possibility that in August they will have to pay £12.50 a day just to use their vehicles in Carshalton and Wallington, as will people planning to visit the local area. The retort of, “Just get on public transport” does not work if we consider the state of the public transport network, as I have set out. The lack of rail services and other public transport infrastructure, and the unreliability of the service that does exist, further adds to the headache my constituents face when going about their day-to-day business.

I reiterate my call to the Mayor of London to scrap plans to expand the ULEZ. My call is backed by the Liberal Democrats and the Green party, and I hope the Minister will join me in it, too. This is the wrong time, and the plans will not work. I sincerely hope that I have the Government’s support on that. Yes, there are issues holding up full restoration of pre-pandemic peak services, but there are a number of solutions, too. These vary in implementation length, depending on the work needed to put them in place. However, solutions will free up capacity, increase usage and unleash unrealised potential across Carshalton, Wallington and further afield.

I sincerely hope that we can hear some Victorian-level ambition for our railway network from the Minister today. Rail does not have to be a relic of a bygone age. It can help super-charge our local economy and unlock new growth, not just for my area but for the rest of south London and the UK. The potential of a well resourced, well built and well serviced railway is exponential—so long, of course, as the Government’s rail plans remain on track.

16:11

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important debate on rail services in his constituency. He is right that, at every opportunity since I was appointed six months ago, he has got hold of me to champion the rights of his constituents. As he says, he is a constituency Member who has a lot of constituents who rely on rail. I am keen to work with him to make their service better.

I will start by setting the context, and talking about covid and changing demand. I am conscious that over the months, my predecessors and I have talked about the challenges, but I want to be more optimistic about the future for rail. I believe it has a great future. Over the past few months, there have been encouraging signs that passengers’ confidence in our railway is beginning to be restored. Nationally, passenger numbers show signs of improvement, and have come close on several occasions to levels seen in equivalent weeks in 2019. There has also been some improvement in the revenue generated across the industry; in some weeks, it averages around 90% of what was generated in that week in 2019.

I believe there is a great future for rail. It is the greener way to travel, and we have a railway heritage. The great people who work on it deserve our support and thanks. I am keen to entice as many people as possible back on to the network, so that we can continue to improve it. However, the pandemic has caused unprecedented change in passenger travel habits. Many people now adopt a hybrid approach, working from home some days of the week, and travelling at different times of the day to avoid the peaks. That means it is quite difficult to make like-for-like comparisons with 2019.

In the light of that, my Department has been working with operators to ensure that they provide rail services that respond to new passenger travel patterns, are fit for the future, and carefully balance cost, capacity and performance. As has often been remarked, the Government have earmarked £16 billion of funding for rail services since the start of the pandemic. That is money from the taxpayer. That is clearly unsustainable in the long term. I am sure you would agree, Dame Maria, that it is unfair to expect taxpayers to subsidise services that continue to exceed demand, and on which there are empty spaces, considering all the costs that over-provision would entail. We must ensure that services are balanced to meet the challenges.

In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, off-peak and peak passenger use remains below pre-pandemic levels. The September 2022 timetable change saw the Monday to Friday off-peak and weekend service from Carshalton to London Victoria via Mitcham Junction reduced from four trains per hour to two. Those changes were made in response to our requirement for operators to balance capacity and demand. The weekday peak service remained at four trains per hour. There are no timetable changes in May 2023, but the Epsom to London Bridge route via Carshalton Beeches and Wallington service will now predominantly run as a four or five-carriage formation off-peak on weekdays and weekends, reflecting demand. Weekday peak services will continue to operate with eight or 10 carriages, to meet higher demand.

Let me turn to the performance of the operator. After some significant challenges in December, which were associated with continued driver availability constraints and high levels of annual leave, I am pleased to see that cancellations have reduced significantly this year, especially in recent periods. GTR retains a considerable focus on continuing that improving trend and delivering the reliability that customers expect and deserve. My Department is working closely with GTR, and as my hon. Friend might expect, closely monitors levels of short-notice cancellations and service delays. Any decrease in performance in those areas can negatively impact the management fee that the train operator receives.

My hon. Friend rightly expects closer working between the operator and Network Rail. GTR and Network Rail collaborate on plans for future investment, maintenance and operation of the railway in the area. Indeed, since I have been appointed, I have insisted on having meetings with both Network Rail’s regional director and the head of the train operator, so that I can hear about their integration at first hand. The Department actively encourages closer working to improve the overall experience for passengers.

My hon. Friend rightly asked about infrastructure upgrades, including the Brighton main line upgrade programme. Of course, I understand the desire for an update on the Croydon area remodelling scheme, which seeks to address capacity constraints in the Croydon area. As he will be aware, following the autumn statement and the more recent Budget, we are reviewing the rail network enhancements pipeline, which is our programme for investment in future rail. In the economic context, it is more important than ever that the enhancement schemes that we take forward are affordable, and respond to the changes in demand for travel that I described. We are taking the proper time to ensure that schemes in the portfolio reflect those priorities. We will make the outcome public once the work is complete, thereby confirming the status of schemes across England and Wales, including the Croydon area remodelling scheme, so I ask my hon. Friend to give us a little more time before we update him.

My hon. Friend also asked about digital signalling, which I am very excited about. A programme is being rolled out on the London North Eastern Railway, on the east coast. I have seen the work that has been undertaken, and have worked alongside those who are delivering it. The efficiencies that it will bring are incredibly exciting. Network Rail is considering conversion to digital signalling on the Brighton main line as part of its renewals process for control period 7; I will bring him further news on that front as and when we have it.

My hon. Friend rightly talks about how we can help those with mobility issues to access the railway. We want a railway network that provides disabled people with improved opportunities for work and leisure travel. Indeed, we want to help all those who struggle to get on the railway, including parents with children in buggies, so that the railway, rather than the car, is a choice for them. The Department is very proud to support the Access for All programme, which has provided step-free accessible routes at over 220 stations, and smaller-scale access improvements at 1,500 more stations. All available Access for All funding has been allocated to projects until March 2024, but we are assessing over 300 nominations with Network Rail for stations for future awards. I am pleased to say that those include a nomination for Carshalton Beeches station, in anticipation of further funding becoming available beyond 2024. I expect to make an announcement regarding successful schemes later this year. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with us as we assess his scheme, and I wish him well in that regard.

With respect to the larger-than-usual gap between the platform and the front of the train at Hackbridge station, which my hon. Friend mentioned, I can report that Network Rail is actively considering a full renewal of the platform, which would come in a few years hence. That would reduce the gap. I hope to bring him more news, and I thank him for bringing that to our attention. I can assure him that we are looking at the issue with Network Rail.

Finally—this is not in the rail portfolio, but it is right for me to respond for the Department for Transport—my hon. Friend made his views on the ULEZ expansion clearly known. I thank him for bringing the matter to Parliament and to the attention of the Government. All I would say is that if I were Mayor of London, which would be unlikely given that I am an East Sussex MP, I would not expand the ultra low emission zone, particularly given the financial impact on drivers and visitors to London, as my hon. Friend said. I will continue to use my role to work with him, and across Government, to ensure that the Mayor of London is held accountable for any decision that he makes. I am aware, as I know many Londoners and many people just outside London are—I am one of them, as I have mentioned—that cash barriers around London will have an impact on London as a whole and businesses in London. My hon. Friend makes the point well.

I hope that my hon. Friend has been reassured by the information that I have been able to give him, and that he can see the Government’s ambition to improve journeys for passengers and create a better, more modern railway industry that delivers good value for money. He is a real champion for his constituents, so I am sure that he will continue to engage with me, stop me to talk to me at every opportunity, and hold further debates. I thank him for this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

16:20

Sitting suspended.

Office for Students

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

16:25

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Office for Students.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. Higher education is unanimous in recognising the need for effective regulation. The UK has an international reputation for the quality and strength of our higher education sector. Everyone involved in the sector I have spoken to or corresponded with understands the role that effective and proportionate regulation has to play in improving standards and maintaining that reputation. I thank everyone who has been in contact since they saw this debate timetabled.

The Office for Students was created in 2018 with the aim of ensuring that higher education in England delivers positive outcomes for students. Its mission statement is:

“to ensure that every student, whatever their background, has a fulfilling experience of higher education that enriches their lives and careers.”

However, there are increasingly concerns that it has become overly bureaucratic, imposes increasingly high costs on providers, takes an inconsistent view on what does and does not affect the quality of student education, and has become more concerned with extending its areas of oversight to meet the desires of the Government of the day than the needs, experiences and views of the students for whom it is supposed to exist.

Regulation is vital for any sector, but it comes with financial and resource costs that must be proportional to the risk, and must represent value for money. The cost of regulation for providers should be an important concern for the OfS, as ultimately that cost is felt by the students. The HE sector has to contend with regulatory overlap; there are multiple regulators in the HE, further education and technical education sectors, as well as multiple subject-level, professional, statutory and regulatory bodies.

The Government’s own regulatory code outlines the principle that regulators

“should collectively follow the principle of ‘collect once, use many times’ when requesting information from those they regulate.”

It also says that regulators should

“share information with each other…to help target resources and activities and minimise duplication.”

It says:

“Regulators should avoid imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens through their regulatory activities”,

and

“should choose proportionate approaches to those they regulate, based on relevant factors including, for example, business size and capacity.”

Is the OfS adopting that approach? In the past few years, it has spent a great deal of time continually revising its regulatory frameworks and processes, including the B conditions of registration on quality and standards, the access and participation regime and the Teaching Excellence Framework.

In 2022, there were a number of significant consultations running simultaneously, and major consultations were run with very short response periods. For example, the consultations on quality and standards, B3, TEF and underpinning data all ran at the same time. The supporting documents for those consultations ran to a total of more than 700 pages, and the sector had just eight weeks to respond to all of them. That approach results in a very high cost to institutions, and risks undermining the quality of data submitted due to the compressed timetable. For example, one Universities UK member had 10 full-time equivalent staff supporting regulatory compliance at an approximate staff cost of £444,000. Another institution estimated the cost of regulatory activities to be £1.1 million in 2022-23.

Such demands place a higher relative cost on smaller providers, which not only lack the resource of the larger providers but tend to offer a wider range of education, including higher education, degree apprenticeships—the Minister’s favourite—further education and other industry-specific continuous professional development. That means that they must deal with a large number of regulators in addition to the OfS, including the Institute for Apprentices and Technical Education, the Education and Skills Funding Agency and Ofsted. Unfortunately, that does not just mean reporting for some students to one regulator and for others to another. Degree apprenticeship students have to be reported to both the OfS and IFATE in significantly different ways. GuildHE reported that one provider needed separate data teams for the two bodies.

On average, the cost of regulation for a student studying HE in a FE college that has only a small HE provision is £289, compared with £14 for a student studying at a large HE institute. That cost is even more pronounced in the light of the lower tuition fees charged by many colleges—£6,165, in contrast with the higher education fees of £9,250.

In the same report on regulation in smaller universities and specialist colleges, GuildHE said:

“Overly-legalistic language in communications, delays in meeting their own deadlines, short consultation periods, consultations’ outcomes that rarely listen to the views of those consulted and political capture”

were regular complaints from their members. Those complaints are repeated in the results of the OfS’s own survey, “Report for the Office of Students: Provider engagement”. Its executive summary said:

“Providers are confused by the complexity of some OfS processes, communications and consultations, and related tasks require high levels of resource by providers.”

It went on:

“Providers would like a more transparent, collaborative, and consultative relationship with the OfS with a shared focus on student outcomes, including opportunities to contribute and share good practice.”

Specifically on smaller providers, it concluded:

“Small providers felt that the OfS was geared towards large established universities and didn’t acknowledge their different levels of resourcing and experience.”

Furthermore, the report read:

“Smaller and further education providers feel that their different circumstances and student audiences are not recognised by the OfS and that the regulator failed to adapt their approach accordingly.”

Those complaints go to the heart of the student experience. HE students are not a homogeneous group and a diverse HE ecosystem is required to meet their needs, but the OfS seems to be operating an overbearing, one-size-fits-all approach. It appears that that approach suits no one, as the report also said:

“Established providers felt they should be treated differently from newer providers and that communications they received didn’t reflect their low-risk track record.”

In the guidance for condition B4, all registered providers are now expected to retain—this is ridiculous—five years of all student assessment. Conservative estimates from Universities UK of what digitalising and storing work on such a scale might cost an institution resulted in figures of between £270,000 and more than £1 million a year. That does not include the environmental cost.

The requirement also poses difficulties for subjects such as art, design, performing arts, and medical and veterinary subjects. Such subjects use a range of approaches to assessment, including continuous assessment based on a series of exchanges. To digitally record all those exchanges would be inappropriate and would entail GDPR issues. The retention of students’ work in the arts presents difficulties over intellectual property rights, which return to students on graduation.

I am not alone in being particularly concerned about the recent announcement that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education will no longer be the Secretary of State for Education’s designated quality body. That means that it will no longer be responsible for assessing quality and standards in English higher education to inform the OfS’s regulatory decision making. The QAA has relinquished its role because the work it was being asked to undertake in England on behalf of the OfS was no longer compliant with recognised quality standards, namely the European standards and guidance that are monitored by the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education.

As the Minister will be aware, the QAA has been in existence for over 25 years. The system it has established is regarded by many countries as the gold standard in quality enhancement and benchmarking and it is still in operation in Wales. Its withdrawal in England is entirely due to the conditions that the OfS has insisted on how their reviews are undertaken.

Among the issues that led to non-compliance were the OfS’s refusal to publish reports on providers, ending the cyclical review of all providers and the insistence that student representatives—remember that this is the OfS—should no longer be part of review teams. The sector is still waiting for clarification on how the OfS would replace the QAA’s role in terms of breadth and activity beyond investigations. Will the OfS now become the regulator, the enforcer and the assessor of quality? If that is the case, how can there not be a conflict of interest?

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a fine speech. I apologise for missing the beginning, because the debate started surprisingly early. She made a really important point about the QAA. Does she not agree that it is rather extraordinary that the QAA is no longer providing that role on the basis that it wanted to provide student voice, significantly? The gold standard she described requires the presence of student voice within the regulatory framework. Does that not go to the heart of the problem with the OfS at the moment? I recall, in a Public Bill Committee, discussing with the Minister at the time the fact that the OfS was set up with too small a student voice. That voice has become consistently more marginalised through its life.

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall speak in more detail about how the voice of students has been marginalised. It seems fairly ridiculous that the Office for Students wants to exclude students when its whole core purpose and mission statement is to represent and promote the needs of students. There is a serious disconnect. I think we should be slightly ashamed of the fact that the QAA is moving out of that role within English institutions.

Although only 6% to 7% of higher education is taught in English FE colleges, they make up around 37% of providers registered with the OfS, and there are more FE colleges on the OfS register than universities. The Education and Skills Funding Agency and the Department for Education are the chief regulators for FE colleges, and several agencies have funding, regulatory and inspectorial roles in the FE. OfS requirements on quality and standard of teaching, student support and wellbeing and financial sustainability overlap with those in many instances.

Large institutions are not unaffected. Universities UK provided an example of one member reporting a total of 99 data returns being required for the 2022-23 academic year across not only the OfS, which represents only a small proportion of this number, but also professional, statutory and regulatory bodies, the Student Loans Company and the Office for National Statistics. That is being supported by a team of seven full-time staff members. Indeed, concerns about multiple and potentially duplicate data collections were recognised by the DfE in the creation of the higher education data reduction taskforce in 2022. I am hoping the Minister will be able to feed back with progress on that.

It has been argued by some that the focused remit for the OfS, as set out in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, was already quite wide-ranging and too broad, with 25 conditions of registration. Over the past five years, the OfS has expanded its responsibilities to include as priorities unexplained grade inflation, harassment and sexual misconduct, mental health and wellbeing, freedom of speech, diversity or provision, modular provision, transnational education, partnership and franchise provision and non-OfS-funded provision such as additional teacher training and degree apprenticeships. With the withdrawal of the QAA, we must now assume quality assurance is a priority. Where is the compelling evidence for this expansion of OfS priorities beyond its original remit in HERA?

In 2022, the Higher Education Policy Institute’s student academic experience survey showed that the majority of students were comfortable about freedom of speech and showed a recovery in several aspects of students’ wellbeing, with the life satisfaction, life feeling worthwhile and happiness categories all increasing. Tackling harassment and sexual misconduct is of course crucial, but is that really the role of the OfS regulator? It is already covered by legislation. The Government’s summary of HERA suggests that the OfS’s primary aim was to make it easier for new higher education providers to enter the market and raise teaching and quality standards. What has driven the OfS to move so quickly into these other areas, bringing increased financial and resource costs for both regulator and regulated?

It seems that the OfS is disproportionately influenced by ministerial pressure. We have just heard of how the increased OfS burden increased regulatory scope, but providers are paying for that twice—once through the extra costs of data collection and administration, and again through a 13% increase in OfS fees to cover its own costs of moving into these extra areas, as announced in December last year. It is worth noting that the OfS was due a review of its fee model two years after its establishment, but that is yet to happen.

However, this is not an increase the OfS wanted in September 2020 when it committed to a 10% real-terms reduction in registration fees over two years. Then came guidance from the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Further and Higher Education in March 2022 advising that the fee reduction was not necessary in view of the priorities the OfS was being asked to pursue. This is neither the first nor the last incident of the priorities of the OfS not being set by the sector or, crucially, by the students, who it was set up for, but by the Government.

In November 2021, the Secretary of State and the Universities Minister write to the OfS requesting that it start requiring universities to work with schools to drive up academic standards. Three months later, the OfS puts out a press release saying that it will work with universities to

“put their shoulder to the wheel”

to increase attainment in schools. In March 2022, the Universities Minister writes to the OfS asking it to conduct on-site inspections. Two months later, the OfS puts out a press release saying—guess what?—that it will conduct on-site inspections. In March 2022, the Secretary of State and Universities Minister write to the OfS asking it to set conditions of registrations in relation to sexual harassment as soon as possible—and it goes on to do just that.

The OfS does not appear to be an independent regulator, driven by the needs of the student; it appears to be a regulator driven by the desires of the Government of the day. But it is not even when the OfS is directly required to do something, which I can understand. If the Minister just happens to mention that something is important, the OfS jumps to. In April 2018, Universities Minister Sam Gyimah is in the news announcing that he will keep a “laser-like” focus on vice-chancellors’ salaries. Guess what the OfS does two months later, without even being asked to? Two months later, it publishes a new requirement forcing universities leaders to justify their salaries.

In April 2021, the then Universities Minister, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), is in the news for announcing that she is “appalled” by inclusive assessment practices that do not mark down students with incorrect grammar. Again, there was no direct request of the OfS, but guess what? Two months later, the OfS launches a review of inclusive assessment practices. In February 2022, the same Universities Minister is in the news, calling for universities to end all online learning. The next month, the OfS launches a review of blended learning.

Where is the regulatory independence that holds students at its very core? The Government do not even need to write to the OfS to get it to do what they want. They just need to issue a press release, and now they have a member of the Conservative party, who chooses to retain the party Whip, sitting in the House of Lords who is the chair of the OfS. As the Minister is aware, Lord Wharton had no previous experience in higher education. He did, however, run the leadership campaign for the man who appointed him.

Last year, while chair of the OfS, Lord Wharton spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Budapest, Hungary. He endorsed the recent victory of the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, a man who had been widely criticised for a host of restrictions on human rights and democratic practices—specifically, for attacks on academic freedom including, infamously, shutting down the independent Central European University. Lord Wharton said that CPAC was a

“great chance to pick up new ideas…reconnect with friends across the world”

and

“fight for the values that we all hold dear”.

I am not even going to quote the remarks of another speaker who attended the conference—Zsolt Bayer, a television talk show host in Hungary—because the language he used is not something I wish to repeat. Lord Wharton wrote an apology to staff, saying that he did not know who else was speaking and had never heard of Bayer, but that is hardly reassuring. The rest of the world can see and hear this. What conclusion does the Minister imagine it is drawing about our supposedly independent OfS?

So the OfS listens and responds to Government, but does it listen and respond to students? We have already heard that HEPI’s most recent student survey suggests a different set of priorities for students from those pursued on their behalf by OfS. The OfS will no doubt say that it has its own avenues to hear from students, but we only get answers to the questions we ask. In the most recent consultation on the national student survey, 90% of respondents told the OfS that they wanted to retain the summative question, “Overall, are you satisfied with your experience?” But out it went anyway. The majority told the OfS that they did not see the value of a question about freedom of expression, but in it went anyway.

With or without those alterations, the NSS only captures the views of final-year students—something that has contributed to both the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office concluding that the OfS has an “incomplete picture” of student satisfaction. That dovetails with the evidence given in a hearing for the ongoing Lords Industry and Regulators Committee inquiry, when members of the OfS student panel said that the panel was threatened with a reassessment of its future if they continued to express views on inclusive curricula that did not conform to those of the OfS staff. Former panel member Francesco Masala said:

“we felt quite often that we were there potentially more as a tick-box exercise rather than genuinely providing active challenge”,

and that if

“you are…a representative of students, there will still be someone in a boardroom who is going to tell you what you really think and what you really want.”

Their opinion was that the OfS made decisions that were opposite to the advice and views gathered through student surveys and consultations and that it then buried the outcomes of those consultations by rolling student feedback in with feedback from all other stakeholders. That was particularly the case on freedom of speech, which they felt was a Government priority and not a student priority. Add to that the OfS’s insistence that the QAA removed students from advisory teams and we might be forgiven for asking, “What does the s in the OfS stand for?” It is unclear to many in the sector whether the OfS has sufficient expertise or capacity to meet its ever-expanding duties and operations. To make matters worse, while expanding its reach into areas where it is not needed, it appears to be falling at monitoring areas that are core to its mission.

Both the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have found that the OfS lacks an integrated system for assessing financial risk. These risks come from a multitude of external pressures on universities’ financial sustainability, such as rising pension costs, inflation in the face of frozen tuition fees, the impact of the covid-19 pandemic and the risk of Government policy or geopolitical events affecting international student recruitment. The OfS does not focus on assessing the level of risk that these systematic risks pose to the sector or our students, despite the fact that the proportion of providers with an in-year deficit, even after adjusting for the impact of pension deficits, increased from 5% in 2015 to 32% in 2019-20. Some 26% of universities forecasted at the end of 2020-21 that their cash balance would fall below 30 days’ net liquidity at some point in the next two years. Financial stress is not confined to one part of the sector: the 20 providers that have had an in-year deficit for at least three years range in size from 200 students to 30,000 students.

Universities UK has raised a number of issues with the way investigations are being undertaken, including a lack of clarity on the basis for the investigation, limited information on what a provider needs to do to comply with the investigation, the scope changing during the investigation, inconsistent methodologies when investigating similar issues within different providers, and the absence of an expected timescale with short deadlines for providers to supply large amounts of information, with delays in response to that information from the OfS. I was given one example where a single query requesting a range of data and information required 8,070 hours of staff time at a cost of £48,000, including external legal advice and a number of examples of requests for large volumes of information followed by changes in the focus of the OfS inquiry. This is undermining trust in the regulator when these requests have been felt to be fishing exercises and, of course, that adds to the time cost and burden of the work.

To conclude, we have heard from all areas of higher education, large and small, that the regulatory burden is too large and expensive. What steps will be taken to reduce it? For example, will the higher education data reduction taskforce be reconvened to assess and address data burdens across OfS and other relevant regulators, including the OfS counterparts in the rest of the UK? Fees are increasing by 13% with disproportionately higher costs for smaller institutions. Does the Minister believe the OfS provides value for money? Will the DFE consider working with the OfS to make specific provisions for smaller institutions by being less rigid in its data requirements, reforming its fee structure to reflect the number of students at an institution and improving two-way communication with the sector. As I know the Minister cares deeply about degree apprenticeships, will he look specifically at the amount of regulatory overlap required for that?

We have a political placeman as chair, constant ministerial direction of the OfS and an OfS no longer compliant with recognised international standards. How will the international standing of the UK HE sector, as one of the high academic standards of excellence free from political interference, be maintained? This country has a higher education sector that is internationally regarded as maintaining the highest academic standards and being free from politically motivated Government interference. It needs and deserves a regulator to match. I do not believe we have it yet.

16:49

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for leading it. She gave a credible, comprehensible introduction—no one could doubt the knowledge she put forward today, and I congratulate her on that.

Higher education is so important for England, and indeed for all of us in the devolved Assemblies, where we have the ability to direct our different ways of doing things. Although the Office for Students does not apply to Northern Ireland—we have a different system back home—the Department for the Economy at the Northern Ireland Assembly has fantastic guidelines and direction in ensuring equality and diversity for every student. As I always do, I will give a Northern Ireland perspective to this debate—not because the Minister has responsibility for Northern Ireland, but to add another perspective, which will complicate what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle has put forward.

I want to honestly say what a joy it is to see the excellent and knowledgeable Minister in his place, and I very much look forward to his contribution. When we go to vote, I hear people from all parties saying that he is a really good Minister. There is consensus of support across the Chamber, which comes from the way he deals with the questions put to him. It is quite an achievement, and I congratulate him on that.

I am also very pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), in his place. He brings a wealth of knowledge on this subject, and I look forward to his contribution as well.

In Northern Ireland, the higher education division formulates policy and administers funding to support education, research and related activities in the Northern Ireland higher education sector. Unlike other parts of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has no higher education funding council; the Department for the Economy fulfils the roles of both a Government Department and a funding council. In Northern Ireland, 77.8% of school pupils will go on to study in some form of higher education setting, whether that be through a regional college, university or education-based apprenticeships.

I have a very good working relationship with my local technical college and Ken Webb, its chief executive; we talk regularly about these matters. I understand that the students the college produces are excellent, and their potential to gain jobs is also there, so there is good continuity from education to employment. Within the higher education division in Northern Ireland, there are many sectors that fall into this category, including the student support branch, student finance branch, research and knowledge branch, and many more.

I am minded, as I often am when I talk about education—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle referred to this, and I am sure others will as well—that the students of today, after all, are the leaders of tomorrow, whether they be politicians, teachers, business leaders or, as in my constituency, farmers. The opportunities are there. We need to encourage and assist the next generation and give them help along the way. That is important.

The Office for Students and other bodies aim to do their best to represent the individual student on many issues: student finance, employability opportunities—I am glad to say that I see evidence of just how good those are—careers advice, which is also excellent, partnerships, collaboration, and much more. Support for higher education is crucial, as it encourages pupils to stay in university and complete their course. According to the Education Data Initiative, around 40% of undergraduate students each academic year leave or drop out of their chosen university course. Those figures are crazy. It is so important that these opportunities are not wasted for others who have been dying—a word I often use—to go to university to gain the opportunity to do better educationally.

I am here to support the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. I want to conclude by saying that this subject is so important and this debate has been vital. The hon. Lady has illustrated its importance in all aspects of higher education, and I am pleased to add my contribution. I thank the Department for Economy back home for all the work it does in this sector. I know that the Minister always responds to these things, so I have only one question for him, which hopefully he can respond to here. Will he ensure that discussions are undertaken regularly with all the devolved Administrations, in particular the Northern Ireland Assembly, so that we can keep our support for him and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle at what is already an all-time high?

16:54

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. As has been mentioned, the Office for Students, which is the independent regulator for higher education providers, is a relatively new addition to the regulatory landscape in the UK and was formed back in January 2018. I think I am right in saying that this is the first opportunity that MPs have had to debate the regulator since the passage of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Here we are five years on, with this well-timed and possibly well overdue debate about what is happening in the landscape.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) not just on securing the debate, but on her absolutely comprehensive and thorough dissection of the issues, which ranged from the burden of bureaucracy, the concerns about consultation and how it is handled, the questions about the future measurement of quality across the sector, and many points in between, which I will elaborate on. I thank my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for his contribution and for reminding us of some of the distinct characteristics of higher education provision in Northern Ireland.

Before I build on some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, I want to stress the importance of good, fair-minded, proportional regulation, which is needed in any sector, especially the higher education sector. For a sector that benefits from £30 billion in income from public money, educates over 2 million students and contributes £52 billion to our GDP, supporting more than 800,000 jobs, the need for regulation is clearly self-evident. To that end, the Higher Education and Research Act lays important foundations for the inception of the Office for Students. It is important to stress that almost no one I have met working in the sector has ever questioned the need for regulation. Indeed, as Universities UK says:

“we support the objectives of the OfS and believe its statutory duties are clear and appropriate”.

However, five years on from HERA, four of the main representative groups—MillionPlus, GuildHE, University Alliance and the Russell Group—have felt compelled to write to the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), expressing

“growing concerns that the OfS is not implementing a fully risk-based approach, that it is not genuinely independent and that it is failing to meet standards we would expect from the Regulators’ Code.”

The establishment of any regulator, especially one that so markedly departs from the role of the previous funding agency, is bound to have some teething problems. But when we have reached the point at which stakeholders are joining forces to raise concerns that the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee has launched an inquiry into, and when MPs feel compelled to raise the issue in Westminster Hall, then something has clearly gone awry. The question is: what?

Regulators are most successful when they are able to exercise a proportionate degree of authority over the sector they regulate. Authority stems from trust, which in turn reinforces the authority of the regulator. The two go hand in hand; they are mutually reinforcing. In part, this issue stems from the structure of the OfS—for example, in not having adequate avenues to allow stakeholders to offer feedback on its own performance as a regulator. The OfS’s provider refresh strategy is therefore broadly welcome, but part of the mistrust stems from a perception—and I think it is a perception—that the regulator is too easily at the beck and call of Ministers, stretching the epithet “independent regulator of higher education” to its very limit.

Most obviously, as we have heard, the chair of the Office for Students, Lord Wharton, is seen as a plainly political appointment, having little experience in the sector while maintaining the Conservative Whip in the Lords. The potential conflict of interest is plain. That he has visited only five universities since his appointment may suggest that his interest lies less in the promotion of the sector and more in occupying a public office to shape the sector to his party’s wishes. Certainly, his failure to declare an interest as a significant donor to Ben Houchen’s campaign to be the Tees Valley Mayor when interviewing and appointing Rachel Houchen as a non-executive director supports that hypothesis.

They say that a fish rots from the head down—incidentally, the last time that I used that expression in this House was in relation to the Government of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). There is a perception that the OfS is straying too far into the political fray at several levels. Take the student panel, for example, which was mentioned earlier. Last week, the former student panel members gave evidence to the Lords Committee. They claimed that

“an acute focus on free speech in regulatory activities was politically motivated rather than being based on the concerns of the student body”,

and strongly indicated that the student voice, as expressed by panel members, was “actively suppressed” when trying to counter aims and policies that appeared to be political in nature.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) talked about the student voice being marginalised. I have frequently thought that the Office for Students is a misnomer. Surely, if it was truly a regulator for students, they would be given greater priority in decision making and greater oversight, and they would turn to it more often and would feel that their priorities—such as the cost of living, student mental health, and sexual harassment and violence on campus—were being given the utmost priority. Given the seriousness of the accusations that have been made, I would welcome the Minister’s personal commitment that he will ensure that the student panel and voice are fully respected within the OfS structure and the regulations that it makes, as schedule 1 to HERA demands.

Another common theme emerging from my conversations around the sector concerns the regulatory burden. Under HERA, the OfS is required to ensure that ongoing registration conditions are proportionate to the OfS’s assessment of the regulatory risk posed by the institution. The OfS has termed this “risk-based regulation”. That is an eminently sensible approach to take, but unfortunately it is one that belies reality.

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, data gathering is being massively duplicated. To give some anonymous examples, as we have heard earlier, I am informed that, for the 2022 Higher Education Statistics Agency data return, one member reported having to provide 59,000 student records, which equates to 7.2 million individual data fields—an increase from 4.5 million in 2019. We have heard that another provider has 10 full-time equivalent staff supporting regulatory compliance, at a cost of £440,000. Another has estimated that the total cost in regulatory activities equates to £1.1 million in the year 2022-23. So the burden is both concentrated and widespread, particularly when taking into account the reporting requirements of other regulatory bodies.

When it comes to degree apprentices, as we have heard, apprenticeship providers are often subject to four, or possibly five, separate regulatory bodies and demands: the OfS, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education or IFATE, the Education and Skills Funding Agency, and Ofsted. The effects on smaller institutions are clearly greater, as these absorb more and more resources to the detriment of the student experience. Over a year ago, the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), launched the HE data reduction taskforce, which of course is very welcome, to tackle this very issue. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on when the taskforce last met, when it next plans to meet and what steps he is taking to ensure that new initiatives, most importantly lifelong learning, do not bog down providers in an even greater regulatory quagmire.

In raising these concerns, I do not intend to discredit the important work that the regulator has done in some areas. The recent work on access and participation plans, for example, and the launch of the equality of opportunity risk register could prove transformational in improving the experience of higher education for students from a widening range of backgrounds. Likewise, a good deal of work has to be done behind closed doors by necessity; managing the financial sustainability of providers is the clearest example. To that end, I was pleased to read the case study note provided by the OfS yesterday about how it is managing financially precarious institutions, which are increasing at an alarming rate under the current Government. I should not need to remind the Minister that the proportion of providers with an in-year deficit increased from 5% in 2015-16 to 32% in 2019-20.

In conclusion, the need for regulation is absolutely obvious; indeed, good regulation is needed to generate confidence, trust and investment in the sector from domestic students, international students, businesses, government and research bodies. However, the relationship between the OfS and the sector is at an all-time low. It did not start at a particularly high level. Trust and confidence is crucial in a regulator, and I am afraid that there are profound concerns across the piece. I have met with the OfS, and I appreciate that moves are afoot to try and reset the relationship and restore confidence. I very much welcome that. Trust and authority are hard-won and quickly lost. To that end, I would welcome the Minister’s response on the following points, as well as those I raised earlier.

What steps is the Minister taking to reassure the sector that the era of heavy-handed political involvement in the regulator is at an end? What plans does he have to raise the registration fees to accommodate additional duties on the OfS? What assessment has he made of any increase on institutional financial sustainability and the student experience? Finally, what assessment has he made of whether the OfS provides value for money, judged against the objectives that Parliament legislated for it, and by comparison with peers in the regulatory sector?

17:05

[The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing this debate. It feels a bit like groundhog day, because we served together on the Education Committee. I have the highest regard for her work, not just on higher education but on special educational needs and disabilities, mental health and post-16 education. I am very happy to be debating the important matter of the OfS with her. I have had the privilege of visiting Ron Dearing University Technical College in her constituency, which is doing an incredible job in transforming the lives of thousands of students.

Before following through on the OfS issues, I want to begin by setting out how I see higher education, because it very much forms the architecture of what we are talking about today. Higher education of course plays many important roles in our society—developing people’s education and academic talents, academic knowledge, and world-class research and innovation, which are absolutely important—but for me the three key things are meeting the skills needs of the economy, providing high-quality qualifications leading to excellent, well-paid jobs, and advancing social justice. What I mean by that is ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, can not only access high-quality education, but complete their studies and get good skills and knowledge, and jobs at the end. The OfS is essential to upholding the quality and ensuring the success of the higher education system and the aims that I have suggested.

Before I turn to the OfS specifically, it is important to briefly highlight the fact that we have an ambitious skills agenda, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle pointed out, with £3.8 billion of extra investment over the Parliament. We are using that to expand and strengthen both higher education and further education. We are investing an extra £750 million in the HE sector up to 2025, to support high-quality teaching and facilities, particularly in science and engineering subjects, and to support NHS and degree apprenticeships. The hon. Member’s university, the University of Hull, is receiving more than £10 million in the strategic priorities grant, so I hope that she is pleased about that.

There is also, of course, the money that goes to UK Research and Innovation, which is £25 billion over the spending review. That is £6.2 billion for Research England, which funds our higher education institutions. The latest estimate shows that the income of English higher education providers in 2021 from tuition fees in education was £21.6 billion, which was 55% of the total income of £39.77 billion.

I was going to talk about the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill, as I thought it would come up, but we have plenty of time next week when we discuss the Bill on Report and Third Reading. The Bill will be very important, because the lifelong loan entitlement will provide everyone with a loan of up to £37,000 to do flexible and modular learning. There will be level 4, level 5 and level 6 provision, and it will start with level 4 and level 5. The OfS and the new register of FE colleges will provide the LLE, and those owners will have an important role.

Let me turn to the OfS and its vital work to support the Government’s priorities. I commend the activity of the OfS, for the most part, over the last five years to put in place the regulatory framework and to register providers. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle talked about the cost, which boils down to just under £13 per student. She also talked about regulation, and I completely get that. I am not a believer in small or big Government; I believe in good Government. I am not a believer in loads of regulation or low regulation, but in good regulation. To be fair to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), he said that as well.

Of course, I recognise that regulation creates a burden for those being regulated, but it is important that the benefit of regulation outweighs the burden. Seeking to minimise the regulatory burden is a key focus. It is set out in the strategy to 2025. I wanted to go as far as possible in doing so. The OfS has already taken significant steps to reduce the data burden it places on providers. In 2022, it removed the need for all providers to send monitoring returns for access and participation plans. It significantly reduced its enhanced monitoring requirements, which are now less than a quarter of what they were in 2019. It has published its intention to become increasingly risk-based in the way it monitors compliance. It also plans to vary further the regulatory requirements placed on individual providers according to the risks they pose, which will affect the impact of its regulation on those that pose the highest risk.

In terms of the regulation of small providers, of course the OfS does apply the same requirements for all types of providers. Whatever provider they go to, students should expect the same quality of education outcomes, protection and support to complete their courses. I accept that the regulatory burden should be minimised, including for small providers, and the OfS has a plan to minimise it. When it does so, it must have regard to the regulation code principles on determining general policy. The regulation code is less relevant to the work of the OfS when carrying out individual investigations and taking enforcement action, but it does take compliance very seriously.

OfS fees are tiered by student numbers, so providers with fewer numbers, such as FE colleges, will pay less in fees. In response to the question from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, we are reviewing the high cost per student for smaller providers when we consider the fees for 2024-25. We are considering those general fees at this time.

On the important point about the QAA, it chose to withdraw consent for designation. If the English system is not in line with the European standard, it is because we do not have cyclical reviews, which we consider disproportionate in terms of regulation. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle highlighted, the OfS will take on the quality assessment role in the interim, while consideration is given to a permanent arrangement. I have met university stakeholders to discuss those issues.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Halfon]

I will in a minute. I have a fair bit to add and want to make the following point, because the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is so kind and comes to a lot of these debates on education and skills, as well as many other debates. I will have dialogue with the regulatory bodies. I was planning to visit them when visiting for the anniversary of the Northern Irish agreement, but unfortunately my slip was withdrawn because I had to vote in the House of Commons. Otherwise, I would have been there and visited universities and colleges in Northern Ireland. I very much hope that I will be able to make that visit. I note that at Queen’s University Belfast, 99% of the research environment is world leading and internationally excellent. I think it is No. 108 in the world, so congratulations to Queen’s University.

[Jim Shannon]

As far as we are concerned, it is No. 1.

[Robert Halfon]

I have a lot more to day, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central now.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the Minister is widely respected for his work on education and his appointment to this job was welcomed. But I want to return to my earlier point about the OfS’s regulatory approach. When I debated the establishment of the OfS in Bill Committee with the Minister’s predecessor, I argued that we had a reasonable regulatory framework—the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The Minister at the time argued that it was important to put students at the heart of regulation. That is why it was called the Office for Students. Does the Minister agree that, if it is to live up to that name, it should do what it says and give a much stronger voice for students in the whole process of regulation? He does not agree with my concern that students have been marginalised, but will he set out how we could give students a stronger place in the OfS’s approach to regulating the sector?

[Robert Halfon]

That is an important question, and the hon. Gentleman is one of the key higher education spokesmen in the House of Commons. I am absolutely supportive of student representation. The student panel is incredibly important. I made a decision as a Minister to interview one of the members of the student panel. I did not have to do that—I could have just ticked the submission and said that Mr X or Ms X is fine—but I took proactive interest, because it is incredibly important to do so.

I met the student panel, and I want it to have a voice. I went to an OfS event in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago. I spent time chatting to the student panel, which is essential in this. As long as it is used properly and listened to, it is the best conduit for ensuring that student voices are heard. The student panel has teeth. I will keep a watch over it, even though the OfS is independent and I do not have operational control. It is a bit like the police: the Mayor of London might have a say over the chief constable, but he does not necessarily tell them what to do day by day. Nevertheless, the student panel is incredibly important, so I accept what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) says.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked me about the taskforce. It last met in full in June 2022, and there has been a subsequent meeting of arms-length bodies, separately, to discuss progress and to identify areas of work to take forward.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that higher education is preparing students for high-quality employment: three quarters of graduates from full-time first degree courses progressed into high-skilled employment or further study 15 months after graduating in 2020. But more must be done to tackle the pockets of poor quality that persist, and the OfS is committed to doing that. The OfS has revised its registration conditions in relation to quality and standards to ensure that they are robust, and it is rightly now taking action to investigate and enforce those conditions.

We want to ensure that students see returns on their investment in higher education. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the net lifetime return from an undergraduate degree is £100,000 for women and £130,000 for men, but it should be noted that the IFS has also found that 25% of male graduates and 15% of female ones will take home less money over their careers than peers who do not get an undergraduate degree. I think that graduates should be achieving outcomes that are consistent with the qualifications that they have completed and paid for.

To give an opposing example, it is a testament to the genuinely excellent teaching and leadership at the University of Hull that nursing and midwifery students experience the highest progression rate—98%—compared to all other OfS-registered HE providers with available progression data, and that the university has performed above the OfS threshold for continuation, completion and progression. I say those things to highlight not just the brilliant work of the University of Hull but the important work that the OfS is doing. Without the work of the OfS, we would not have that kind of information.

I talked about social justice, which is very important to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and to me. I want to ensure that no student is excluded from higher education because of their background. A wider point has been made about us putting extra burdens on the OfS, but it has recently launched the equality of opportunity risk register to highlight key risks that can impact negatively on disadvantaged and under-represented student groups across the whole of the student lifecycle. That is an extra thing for the OfS to do, but I want it to happen. I am delighted with that. I do not like the name “risk register”, but nevertheless the principle is really important. It will empower higher education providers to develop effective interventions and support at-risk students, helping them not only get in but get on. I have a lot more to day about Hull University. It really is doing some remarkable things, and I hope to be able to go there one day and see it.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle cares deeply about mental health. We have allocated £15 million from the strategic priorities grant to the OfS for mental health support. That is another OfS duty and its purpose is to support students’ wellbeing when they transition to university, and to create opportunities for partnerships between providers and the national health service. The OfS has a role to play in funding Student Space, an online platform for mental health and wellbeing resources. The OfS also runs a mental health challenge competition with Northumbria University. It has supported projects to ensure that mental health needs are identified by providers. That is another important role for the OFS. Yes, the OfS has increased its role, but it is doing really important things that will make a difference to many students’ lives.

I knew that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle would bring up degree apprenticeships. I have some sympathy with what she says; there is too much regulation, and all I can say to her is to please watch this space. I am looking at it very carefully to see what can be done. Of course, we also have to maintain quality, because if we do not have quality, I will have the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, get up in Education questions and ask why apprenticeship provision is so poor. The hon. Lady will be pleased that over the next two years we will increase from £8 million to £40 million—£16 million in the first year, and £24 million in the second—the funding to promote degree apprenticeships among providers. I know she will support that extra funding.

A House of Lords inquiry has criticised the OfS registration fees for being too high. As I have mentioned, however, in the light of the Government’s commitment to funding skills over the Parliament, the OfS registration fees offer value for money. It is currently around £26 million a year, which is less than £13 per student. I do not think that feels like a high price to pay to ensure that we have a high-quality system working in the interests of students.

In conclusion, the work of the Government, which I have outlined, and of the OfS regulator will continue to deliver on skills, jobs and social justice. I accept that there is over-regulation—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle highlighted some unnecessary regulation that I will look at with officials at the Department for Education. However, we have a world-class higher education sector. I am not complacent about it. I acknowledge that there is not enough in some areas, and that some graduates are not getting good, skilled jobs, but many—in fact, most—higher education providers deliver a top-class education and equip students with the skills they need to get excellent jobs. I am clear that a robust and fair regulator—a good regulator—is vital to ensuring that our higher education sector remains world leading and protects students and the taxpayer.

I think that the OfS has achieved a fair bit in the first five years of its existence. It has registered 400 providers. It has also registered the new Dyson Institute, which is—

[Emma Hardy]

Hoovering up students!

[Robert Halfon]

Very good. I have been to that university. I met James Dyson some years ago when I was the Chair of the Education Committee. It was extraordinary. I hope that there will be many more examples of universities like that one. The Department will work closely with the OfS to ensure that we continue supporting a world-class higher education system. As I said, I remain committed to delivering on skills, jobs and social justice. The OfS will be an absolutely crucial part of that.

[Matt Western]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Halfon]

How could I say no to the hon. Gentleman?

[Matt Western]

I was hoping that the Minister could cover the three questions I raised at the end.

[Robert Halfon]

I thought I had answered most of the questions.

[Matt Western]

There was one about political interference, which may be difficult for the Minister to answer. Could I go back to the second question? It was about whether he had any plans to raise registration fees. I also had a question about an assessment of the value for money that the OfS represents, particularly in the context of other regulators.

[Robert Halfon]

I am happy to answer. I think I said that we are considering OfS registration fees and that I will come back about that matter in due course. I do not recognise any political interference. Since becoming a Minister, I have had meetings with the OfS chief executive and chair, and we have literally just discussed what needs to be done to make sure that the organisation continues its work and that we continue to have a world-class university system.

I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon—what was the third point?

[Matt Western]

Assessment of value for money.

[Robert Halfon]

Ah, yes. I think the OfS is providing value for money. First, as I mentioned, the cost to students is just under £13, which represents value for money. More importantly, what are the outcomes? If we have great universities, as we do, and we are meeting the country’s skills needs, promoting degree apprenticeships and acting further on mental health and other areas, including social justice, to make sure that disadvantaged students have the right outcomes, as we are, then the OfS will absolutely be providing value for money.

17:27

[Emma Hardy]

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. The Minister knows how to charm me: he talked about how good Hull University is, and of course I agree. That brings me to my favourite fact about it: there are more graduates from Hull University in the Houses of Parliament than from any other university, partly because of its internship programme.

Nobody minds bureaucracy and paperwork if their purpose is seen as improving outcomes for students; as a teacher, I never minded that. The core of the issue is that although some OfS bureaucracy does make a difference—I share the Minister’s thoughts about the equality risk register—so much of it does not improve outcomes for students. In fact, it has a detrimental impact as it drives resources and energy away from the necessary focus on students. I welcome the fact that the Minister is going to look at some of my examples.

On the issue of the chair of the OfS, I should say that the Minister and I served together for a few years on the Education Committee—he cares about education, as does everyone in this room. I just believe that we deserve an OfS chair who genuinely cares about education as much as we all do.

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Before I put the question, I offer a sincere apology to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I started the debate six minutes early because I knew that we would fill every moment, but I could see that he had made every effort to be here by 4.30 pm. I hope he will understand that, in starting early as we did, we gave the debate an extra few minutes—including an extra few minutes’ scrutiny of the Minister, which I am sure the Minister appreciated.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Office for Students.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.