House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
I direct the hon. Lady to read the environmental improvement plan, which has 262 pages of comprehensive cross-Government actions we will take to meet the legally binding targets this Government put in place to restore nature. Copies of the plan can be found in the House of Commons Library.
Wera Hobhouse
Britain is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Nearly half of the UK’s nature has been destroyed, which is well above the global average. In response to a 2021 report on biodiversity loss, the Government pledged that they would leave nature in a better state than they found it. Yet since that pledge, no firm targets have been set to improve our declining nature. Will the Minister support my Ecology Bill, which has widespread support across the House and would require her to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030?
Trudy Harrison
The Environment Act 2021 could have no stronger target, and throughout the 262 pages of the environmental improvement plan we explain the legal targets, including on tree canopy cover and on improvements to water, air quality and our soil. We are also making significant progress with our environmental land management scheme, which will reward farmers for their environmental stewardship.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I welcome the news, announced last week, that the West Midlands Combined Authority is to receive £1 million from the natural capital programme. Will the Minister outline how the programme, working with local authorities and Andy Street, the West Midlands Mayor, will help to tackle nature loss and benefit local people in my constituency?
Trudy Harrison
Absolutely. That is a fine example of how local authorities are providing the support for nature that we need. As we roll out our local nature recovery strategies across all 48 upper tier authorities in England very soon, we will see start to see how the collaboration between authorities, environmental non-government organisations, charities, our farmers and communities will halt the decline of nature by 2030.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
The Department meets regularly with food retailers to discuss a range of issues, including the impact of food inflation. Most recently, on Tuesday the Chancellor and the Secretary of State met a number of food and drink manufacturers. We will continue that engagement to ensure consumers have access to a range of affordable food, in recognition of the pressures people are feeling at home.
Michael Fabricant
I thank the Minister for his answer. My constituents in Lichfield and Burntwood, and people in the rest of the country, are enduring high food inflation, as are those in the rest of Europe. What controls—if that is the word—do we have to ensure supermarkets do not take unfair advantage and excess profits from wholesale prices?
Mark Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Retailers work to ensure strong that competitive pressure remains in the marketplace. However, the Competition and Markets Authority announced last week that it is looking into the grocery sector to see whether any failure in competition is contributing to prices being higher than they would normally be. The CMA will focus on areas where people are experiencing greater cost of living pressures. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Groceries Code Adjudicator will remain separate from the CMA and can take up investigations should it choose to do so.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Food price inflation remains at the eye-wateringly high level of 19%, causing misery to millions. The UK Farm to Fork summit provided an opportunity to tackle inflationary pressures across the supply chain, but the Secretary of State’s written statement did not mention inflation once. Can the Minister say if there is a plan to rapidly reduce food price inflation—and if not, why not?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the Prime Minister’s main targets is to reduce inflation. Clearly, food makes up a huge part of that inflationary pressure. Pressures in global markets are driving up energy and food, not least because of Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but we are working closely with retailers, producers and processors to ensure we can strip out as many of those pressures as possible.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Food inflation is running at almost 2%, lower-standard imported eggs are on supermarket shelves because our producers are being undercut, and today record immigration numbers are announced, but the wrong people—we do not have the people to produce food in our fields. What are the Minister and the Secretary of State, who are responsible for our food system, doing about all that? Are they just innocent bystanders?
Mark Spencer
Once again, the hon. Gentleman is a little disingenuous. The immigration figures were partly driven by people coming from Ukraine and Hong Kong. I recognise that we need help and support in the labour market. That is why the Government have issued 45,000 visas, with an extra 10,000 top-up not only for this year —we have already have stated we will do that again next year—to give growers and producers the opportunity to source the labour they need to harvest vegetables and fruit.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Last week’s most vaunted Farm to Fork Summit, from which the Scottish Government were excluded, was described as an “empty meeting” by food and farming industry representatives, with no action on price or food inflation discussed, and one that
“did not touch on the fundamental problems of food price inflation”.
In addition, Ministers offered no commitment in response to a call by the National Farmers Union to stop Britain’s self-sufficiency in food slipping below its current level of 6%. Does the Minister agree with the National Farmers Union’s assessment of the summit? If not, what concrete outcomes does he think it achieved on food price reduction?
Mark Spencer
I do not know whether the hon. Lady lives in a different universe, because the NFU welcomed the food summit. It requested it and it was grateful that it took place. It was a huge success, pulling together retailers, processers and primary producers to get under the skin of the challenges that we face as a country. We will solve those challenges by working together. Many people celebrated that Farm to Fork Summit, as should she, rather than criticising it.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government recognise the importance of trade in the food and drink sector. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regularly reviews UK import and export trade statistics, including from the European Union. In April, the Government presented their draft border target operating model for all goods imports into Great Britain. To ensure enough time for proper preparedness, we will implement the model across three milestones between the end of October and 31 October 2024. In the longer term, the UK single trade window will enable all information required to import and export goods to be submitted to border agencies through one interface, further simplifying the process for traders.
Kirsten Oswald
In recent years, Scotland has grown a third of all the UK’s soft fruits. However, exports have been quashed because of Brexit, with UK fruit exports falling by more than half, from £248.5 million in the year ending March 2021 to £113.8 million in the year ending March 2023. Given that Scottish food perishables travel further to Dover and are more sensitive to delays among the sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to remove the Brexit barriers to trade that her Government have imposed on Scottish businesses?
Dr Coffey
It is the European Union that has put certain checks in place in its export arrangements. We have had a pretty open door since we left the European Union, which is why we are implementing the target operating model to ensure that we introduce further controls, mindful of the biosecurity risks that we face.
Deidre Brock
Mike Park, the chief executive officer of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, told The New York Times that his industry members were the “poster boys” of Brexit, but now admit that Brexit has delivered nothing, saying:
“It has left some very negative legacies and hasn’t provided any of the positives we were promised.”
Given the latest polling shows that only 9% think that the decision to leave the EU was more of a success than a failure and 62% describe it as more of a flop, and given the damage to Scotland’s global fresh food and drinks sector, can the Secretary of State finally agree that the only Brexit growth our economy is experiencing is in managed decline?
Dr Coffey
What can I say? Rubbish. The quota for British fishermen, including Scottish fishermen, has gone up since we left the European Union. We have signed new trade deals, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership being the latest. We have announced an extra five agricultural attachés around the world, making 16 in total, who will promote great British food, including fish, around the world.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
There are now 424 designated bathing sites. Four new sites have been added this year, including two in Rutland Water, one in Plymouth and one in my own constituency, on the River Deben, near Waldringfield. That is the highest number of bathing water sites we have ever had.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that bathing water sites are designated on the basis of how many people bathe there rather than water quality. However, thanks to targeted regulation and investment of £2.5 billion, we have made excellent progress in improving bathing water quality at existing sites, such that 93% of bathing waters were classified as good or excellent last year, up from just over 70% in 2010.
Philip Dunne
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her answer. She will be aware that last week, Water UK announced that water companies will support applications for 100 sites on inland waterways to achieve the bathing water standard. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Environment Agency is resourced to facilitate monitoring of those sites on their journey to achieve that important designation of clean water in our rivers?
Dr Coffey
I assure my right hon. Friend that the Environment Agency will do the monitoring that is expected for all designated bathing water sites. I welcome what the water companies said last week—both their apology and their proposal to support more inland waterways to achieve the bathing water designation. However, let us be clear: the money announced by the water companies was what we were expecting, to comply with the storm overflows discharge reduction plan that we have already set in place. We will continue to ensure that the regulations promote bathing water sites, but the ultimate benefit of subsequent targeting and interventions will be improved water quality.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for backing my campaign to designate Devil’s Point and Firestone bay in Plymouth as bathing waters. I am now targeting a sewage outlet that is pumping raw human sewage into Plymouth Sound all year round. Is it time to look again at the period during which water testing takes place in official bathing waters, and extend it from the period of 15 May to 30 September, since wild swimmers like me swim in bathing waters all year round, not just in the summer season?
Dr Coffey
The dates set down are pretty consistent across much of Europe, as the original regulations that we signed up to came from Europe. The dates reflect the fact that more people tend to go swimming in the summer, so bathing water sites are designated on that basis, although people will swim in different parts of the country all year around. I am pleased that Plymouth was granted that status, and I am sure people will welcome the extra investment that is likely to follow as a consequence.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Three weeks ago, the Secretary of State led Tory MPs through the voting lobby to vote down Labour’s Bill that would have finally ended the Tory sewage scandal by making polluters pay. Last week, water companies apologised for their part in the Tory sewage scandal. Given her own track record, more recently and previously as water Minister, overseeing a doubling of sewage dumping, will she now do the right thing and apologise? Will she right that wrong by following Labour’s lead to ensure that water company dividends, not bill payers, cover the costs of ending the Tory sewage scandal?
Dr Coffey
I think the hon. Gentleman might need to correct the record. The Government did not vote down a Bill; what we voted down was the Labour party trying to take control of the Order Paper. During that debate, we pointed out the inadequacy of the Bill and how the plan referred to in the long title was already under way, so his Bill was nugatory. The hon. Gentleman also seemed to forget about the Welsh Labour Government and the fact that there is greater frequency of sewage outflow usage in Wales than in England. Somehow that was left out of the debate, because the hon. Gentleman did not realise the issue was devolved.
I remind the House that it was not a Labour Government who introduced the monitoring of storm overflows. Indeed, a Labour Government introduced self-monitoring by water companies in 2009, after they were taken to court by the European Union. We should be clear that we have now seen an increase in monitoring, and by the end of the year over 91% of storm overflows will be monitored. That has unveiled the scourge of this scandal. Frankly, it is Labour Members and previous Labour Ministers who should hang their heads in shame about looking the other way.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
We want to see less waste being sent to incinerators, which is why we set a statutory target to halve the 2019 level of residual waste by 2042. The Environment Agency inspects and audits energy from waste plants to ensure that they are complying with the requirements of their environmental permits, which include strict emissions limits and associated strict requirements to monitor those limits.
Elliot Colburn
Only about 20% of the waste that goes into the Beddington incinerator in my constituency is plastic, but it makes up three quarters of the harmful particulates that come out of the chimney stacks. Technology is available to extract plastic before it is burnt, and is being trialled around the country. Does the Minister agree that all waste incineration plants should be installing this technology as soon as possible?
Rebecca Pow
We have legislated to prevent incinerators from accepting separately collected paper, metal, glass and plastic unless they have gone through a recycling facility first. We are trying to reduce all our waste but particularly plastic, and our plastic packaging reforms, which are under way, will mean that, overall, less waste will be incinerated.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As the Minister has said, we need to reduce the amount of waste that is being incinerated. One way of doing that would be to develop a truly circular economy, which could also result in the creation of many more green jobs. This is a DEFRA responsibility, but we do not hear much from DEFRA about its plans. Will the Minister tell us what action she is taking?
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Lady is right, and we are committed to measures to introduce a much more circular economy. We must cut the amount of resources that we use, and recycle more, reuse more and refill more. Work is under way, and data is being gathered on our extended producer responsibility scheme, which we will introduce in 2024, and the deposit return scheme will be introduced in 2025. Those, along with consistent collections, will reduce the amount of waste that we, as a society, throw away.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Waste incinerators are three times more likely to be built in the UK’s most deprived neighbourhoods than in the least deprived, and people in those communities are twice as likely to have a lung condition and seven times more likely to die from one. Is the Minister confident that she has enough monitoring in place to provide accurate, timely and consistent data to ensure that these incinerators do not breach our emissions targets and thus put local people at risk of further harm?
Rebecca Pow
It is crucial for waste incineration plants to have the correct permits and to be correctly monitored, which is why the Environment Agency has imposed strict emissions limits and applies the permit scheme to a number of pollutants to ensure that people who live near incinerators are completely safe. All operators of incinerator plants must carry out their own monitoring and report back constantly on the safety of their plants, because human health is, of course, critical.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
Halting species decline is a considerable task, but one to which we are absolutely committed. Again, I recommend the perusal of our environmental improvement plan, which summarises the significant action taken so far, but let me give a few examples. We have created or restored plant and wildlife habitats equivalent to the size of Dorset, we have established 40,000 agreements with farmers on nature-friendly actions, we have 22 landscape-scale restoration projects under way, and we have benefited from the conservation status and prospects of 188 species.
Mr Dhesi
The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Research conducted by the Natural History Museum has revealed that when it comes to the amount of biodiversity that survives, we are at the very bottom of the list of G7 nations and among the lowest 10% globally. Thousands of badgers continue to be slaughtered unnecessarily; that, along with bee-killing neonic pesticides, has been authorised by this Government, who have also have failed to act to stop illegal hunting or effectively limit peatland extraction or moorland burning. Moreover, they have missed the legal deadline for the publication of their own environmental targets. Given all these facts, how can we now trust them to ensure that some of our most loved and iconic British animals do not become extinct?
Trudy Harrison
I point to the Environment Act 2021. I also point out that the real priority for species abundance is creating habitat, and in a country where 70% of our area is farmed, that is exactly why we have our environmental land management schemes. We are planting more trees and creating more habitats. We are investing £750 million to create more opportunities to plant trees and hedgerows. We are improving the air that all species breathe and improving water quality. We are putting everything we can in legal targets and interim targets, as well as in moral ambition, on the back of our environmental improvement plan.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I have spoken with the business managers and expect an announcement on the progress of the Bill very soon.
Kevin Foster
I note the Secretary of State’s answer, but the Bill contains urgently needed animal welfare provisions on puppy smuggling and zoo regulation, so does she agree that a date to introduce these measures should be announced urgently?
Dr Coffey
As I just said, I expect an announcement on the progress of the Bill very soon, but I stress that animal welfare has been a priority for the Government since 2010. We have made improvements for farm animals, pets and wild animals. In 2021, we published an action plan on animal welfare, and since then we have delivered four manifesto commitments and passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021. We have provided greater protection for elephants by bringing the Ivory Act 2018 into force, and we are extending that. We have also made micro- chipping compulsory. We have supported many measures in our manifesto through the House and hopefully more will complete their passage through the other place within the next couple of months.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s response. I endorse the request made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), because puppy smuggling is an important issue in Northern Ireland. We have to work together to tackle the smuggling of puppies from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland and across on to the mainland. Has the right hon. Lady had an opportunity to speak to the authorities in Northern Ireland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland in particular, to stop this terrible activity that goes on across all of the United Kingdom?
Dr Coffey
I had the great pleasure of attending the Balmoral show recently, although I admit we were more focused on farming and food, rather than aspects of animal welfare. The police can act on a number of activities where they suspect crime is being committed, and we intend to strengthen the offences to help the police.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
We have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues, and as halving inflation is one of the Government’s top priorities, it is discussed regularly. Recent discussions have covered the substantial package of support from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury that is already in place, and we continue to meet retailers and producers to explore how they can further support their customers.
Peter Grant
Families on lower incomes have no choice but to spend a much bigger proportion of their income on basic foodstuffs than those of us who are lucky enough to be better off. With inflation for many basic foodstuffs still running at over 30%, thousands of my constituents are facing real cost of living increases that are probably double the official rate of inflation. Government targets are all very well, but my constituents cannot eat targets. Can the Minister give any indication of how much longer my constituents will have to wait until the real price of their food shopping bill comes back to what it was just two years ago?
Mark Spencer
Of course we recognise that challenge, and that is why we are protecting the most vulnerable households. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced targeted support worth £26 billion to support those very people. More than 8 million households are eligible for means-tested benefits. They will receive extra cost of living payments totalling £900 per household in 2023-24, and over 99% of the cost of living payments for this year have already been made.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will the Minister ensure that our farm support programmes, as well as delivering crucial environmental goals, make it easier for farmers to make a living from growing food? That will feed through into lower food prices.
Mark Spencer
It is worth stating again that food production is the primary purpose of farming in this country. We will always back our farmers to produce great-quality, high-welfare food, but we can do that at the same time as improving our environmental output and biodiversity.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
As I said earlier, tackling inflation is the Government’s No. 1 priority, and we have a plan to halve inflation this year. We have provided significant support over this year, worth more than £3,500 per household. That includes direct cash payments to the most vulnerable households, as well as uprating benefits and the state pension by over 10% in April.
Dan Carden
According to this week’s inflation data, the cost of sugar and some cooking oils is up nearly 50%, but the prices that people see in the supermarkets for some products are up 100% and above—I hope the Competition and Markets Authority will get to the bottom of that. It is no wonder that food banks are facing record levels of need for support. Between April 2022 and March 2023, the Trussell Trust distributed more than 1 million parcels to children, reaching this grim milestone for the first time in its history. What is the Department doing to ensure that, when food banks are overwhelmed, the Government are there to step in?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the household support fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a huge £26 billion package of support for the most vulnerable households, to get them through the pressures they are feeling. We are subject to the global pressures driven by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which has caused huge ripples not only in the UK but around Europe. We will back those people, and we will support the most vulnerable in society.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I am pleased that we had the Farm to Fork summit in Downing Street last week, and it was a good opportunity to discuss issues such as the supply chain and trade. It brought together super- markets, food processors and food manufacturers, as well as food growers, to have that vital discussion as we continue to try to make sure that we improve the status of farmers in our food chain.
Today, I also welcome the statistics showing that farmers’ incomes are up 17% this year. I am sure we will continue to have a thriving food production industry for many years to come.
Simon Jupp
Homes in Newton Poppleford, Tipton St John, Metcombe and Venn Ottery in my East Devon constituency were badly damaged by recent flash floods. I went to see the residents, and the result of the flooding is heartbreaking. Insurance companies really need to step up and support those residents, who rallied around each other in very difficult circumstances. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the multi-agency response to the recent flooding, because the risk of floods in East Devon is not going anywhere?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is undoubtedly a doughty champion for his constituents, and I am very conscious of the impact that flooding can have on communities, households and businesses. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), is happy to meet him, and she has recently met the Environment Agency. We will continue to make sure that we deliver thousands of flood schemes, which will benefit not only East Devon but every part of the country. We will also continue to try to improve the local and national response.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
A year on from my request from this Dispatch Box for an urgent meeting on food security, the Government’s Farm to Fork summit was described by attendees as “no more than a PR stunt” that will do nothing to help the cost of living crisis.
The Secretary of State also knows that fishing is a key pillar of our food security, but it is under grave threat on Teesside. Given that crustacean die-offs continue to cripple generations of fishers, will she join me in demanding that the inevitable “truth on Teesside” public inquiry includes this environmental and economic disaster in its terms of reference?
Dr Coffey
Yet again, the shadow Secretary of State does not seem to trust civil servants. Our chief scientific adviser did a thorough job of going through what has happened on Teesside and what is available. Organisations such as the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science have also looked at recent incidents, and we will continue to use our scientists to investigate, as appropriate.
I am afraid that peddling conspiracy theories is not appropriate for a shadow Secretary of State.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I believe the Environment Agency has already met Mr Turner and his group, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend too. Obviously, I must stress that managing coastal change in those legacy landfill sites, some of which have historical issues, is very much the responsibility of the local coastal protection authorities. The Government are taking action, looking at what priority action we could take on these historical landfill sites to find a way forward in these many and varied areas.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
The hon. Lady should be aware that I meet British Sugar regularly. We are keen to help and support it with new technology, with investment in genetic technologies to improve sugar beet yields. We will continue to have those conversations. We are very much aware of the pressures on global sugar prices, which is why we need a thriving and productive sugar market here in the UK.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
My local farmers have told me that they need their seasonal worker visas extended to a nine-month period from six. Will the Department work with the Home Office to have that extended?
Mark Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are very aware of the challenges those businesses are facing, which is why we have increased the number of visas. We have also rolled over 45,000 visas to next year, with an extra 10,000 if required. We will continue to have conversations with our friends at the Home Office on how we can best support that sector.
Dan Jarvis2002 (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that dividends and profits of water companies cannot come from customers—[Interruption.] If the water companies want to compensate people and they have not done the right thing by the environment, that will not come out of customers’ pockets. This Government have put in a huge plan for £56 billion-worth of investment by the water companies to clean up our waters—this is more than ever before.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Dog-loving constituents of mine have expressed concerns about a potential ban on e-collars. They say that in Wales, where e-collars are banned, attacks on sheep have increased exponentially, with the result being electric fences that are far more harmful to dogs. Will my right hon. Friend consider some form of licensing or regulation of usage, rather than an outright ban?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
I have heard clearly what my right hon. Friend is saying. I, too, am a dog lover and understand the need for not only positive training, but corrective training at times. For that reason, the use of collars that emit a spray or vibration will be permitted to continue, and invisible fence containment systems are also not part of this proposal. I will ensure that she has a meeting with my counterpart in the other place, because this is yet to be debated in the Lords.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Dr Coffey
Of course, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was heavily involved in this wide-ranging trade deal, which covered not just agricultural elements, but a number of services. Our FLEGT—forest law enforcement governance and trade—regulations, which we are still processing, will be an effective way of making sure that the supply chain is sustainable for any products brought into the country that it covers.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Although showing some progress, the NFU’s latest digital technology survey reveals that only 21% reported reliable mobile signal throughout their farms and fewer than half have adequate broadband for their business. What is my right hon. Friend doing with her counterparts in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that rural businesses are prioritised for increased connectivity.
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: of course we need good broadband and good connectivity across rural areas. We continue to have conversations with our friends in the Department to make sure that this is delivered, as it is a priority of the Government.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Mark Spencer
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have been able to get fishermen on to the shortage occupation list. The Home Office has conceded on that so that those people can now make use of that process. We shall continue to have conversations with both the fishing industry and the Home Office to try to help the industry. The good news is that, following our leaving the EU, we do now have the opportunity to manage our own fisheries and we have been able to increase quotas, and the amount of catch and fish that is landed has now gone up.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
This week, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee visited a Dogs Trust rescue centre as part of our inquiry on pet welfare and abuse. Each year, huge numbers of puppies, heavily pregnant dogs and dogs that have had their ears horrifically cropped are smuggled into the UK. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me and the House that the Government are committed to stamping out these horrific practices by bringing back the appropriate animal welfare legislation?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
I have already set out to the House that it is two years since the ambitious animal welfare plan was put in place. We have pursued a number of different issues. As you can imagine, Mr Speaker, the Government are working on a variety of things and a response will be given in due course.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
On Monday, BBC’s “Panorama” programme examined the continuing misery being inflicted on my constituents by Walleys Quarry Landfill, and, as you will know, Mr Speaker, the Staffordshire waste site in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) is also affecting my constituents. We have a situation where not one, but two rogue operators are making the lives of the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme a misery, and the actions of the Environment Agency are too slow and not robust enough, so what will the Minister do to ensure that we get justice and accountability for what we are going through?
Rebecca Pow
I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner on the issue of Walleys Quarry, and that the Secretary of State has visited the area recently. I know, too, that there was a “Panorama” programme about the site. An enforcement notice was issued by the EA on 5 May requiring the operator to take further action around waste acceptance procedures on the site to reduce the risk of sulphate-bearing material entering the landfill. I have spoken many times to the EA and know that it is working very hard to reduce the dangers, potentially, that locals may feel come from this site.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Will the Minister be prepared to meet me and representatives of the Horticulture Trades Association to discuss what further steps the Government could take to support the horticultural sector in developing responsibly resourced, high-quality alternatives to peat that can be produced at volume?
Trudy Harrison
I have already met James Barnes at the HTA and I will continue to meet him and other members of the association. I have visited a number of nurseries and will continue to do so. I also offer to have a meeting with the hon. Member to discuss how we are supporting the horticultural industry, which is incredibly important in this country for food production. During the week of the Chelsea Flower Show we can see for ourselves the green-fingered talents of this country, which need to continue and be supported.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
This Government are committed to delivering justice for victims of serious violence, and I can confirm that the CPS prosecuted more than 103,000 cases of serious violence, firearm offences and homicides in 2022, with a conviction rate of over 84%.
Scott Benton
There have been a number of knife crime incidents in Blackpool over recent weeks that have concerned my constituents, not least a disturbing case in which a man was arrested after carrying a 16-inch machete. What action is being taken by the CPS to reduce knife crime offending both in Blackpool and across Lancashire as a whole?
The Solicitor General
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his interest and knowledge in this area—not least because he seems to be drawn for these questions, week in, week out. Of course the CPS has been instrumental in the pilots of serious violence reduction orders, which are aimed at reducing knife crime, and it is right to say that those orders will provide an extra tool to help to crack down on violent crime. The CPS looks at both breaches of those and the original orders. The law tour next week is visiting the north-west CPS area, which covers both my hon. Friend’s constituency and yours, Mr Speaker, and you would both be more than welcome to join us on that tour to see the CPS and the police working together on this issue.
Ian Levy
My constituents and I have been deeply shaken by recent incidents of violent crime in my constituency. Losing a loved one to senseless violence is a tragedy that no one should ever have to endure. Will my hon. and learned Friend meet me to discuss these cases, which have caused concern to my constituents, and how we can better support victims and their families by ensuring that the prosecution of violent crime is a priority?
The Solicitor General
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his hard work on behalf of his constituents. It is right to say that tackling serious violence and improving the support we offer to victims is a priority for this Government. That is shown not least through the Victims and Prisoners Bill and the revised victims code. I would be happy to meet him to discuss that further.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Solicitor General very much for his responses to those questions. Northern Ireland has seen more than its share of violent crime, but in relation to the knife crime that both questions referred to, Northern Ireland has also seen an increase in the number of knife murders, attempted murders and people carrying knives or other sharp instruments. I know he is a very dutiful Minister, so what opportunity has he had to discuss those matters with the pertinent Minister for Northern Ireland, to ensure that we also see some benefit from those measures?
The Solicitor General
May I return the hon. Gentleman’s compliment and pay tribute to him for his diligence in this House and for all that he does? In fact, the Attorney General has had very close links with Northern Ireland recently, and both she and I, with the Advocate General for Scotland, had the privilege of being called to the Bar in Northern Ireland. I am determined to keep those conversations and channels open, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Office is consulting now on knife crime, with a closing date of 6 June.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
Tackling violence against women and girls remains one of the Government’s top priorities. We are doing everything possible to make our streets and homes safer for women and girls. Since the launch of the joint action plan, we have seen a significant increase in charge volumes for adult rape since January 2021.
Dr Huq
More than one in nine rape prosecutions were dropped last year because victims withdrew their support, crushed by what can be a three-year wait for their day in court and the humiliation of victim blaming. Will the Attorney General fix those problems and accept the joint inspectorate’s conclusions that the system is obviously failing rape victims when many of them find the legal process overlong and more harrowing than the original offence?
The Attorney General
I thank the hon. Lady for her interest in this matter; it is something she and I discussed for many years as colleagues on the Justice Committee. We know it is important that justice is given as speedily as possible. Digging into the attrition of victims, particularly in rape cases, is very salutary. It is one reason why the Government have increased the money available to support victims fourfold in recent times. On the law tour next week, which the Solicitor General referred to, we will be visiting an independent sexual violence adviser in Nottingham. We know that, where a victim has support, they are 50% less likely to withdraw from proceedings.
Ruth Cadbury
I have heard from many women in my constituency who have been victims of domestic violence and abuse. They have reported it to the police but they are still not getting the support or the justice that they deserve. Rather than offering warm words, can the Attorney General explain why the number of charges for domestic abuse and violence has not just failed to keep pace with the rise in reported offences but has gone so dramatically backwards?
The Attorney General
I thank the hon. Lady for her interest in this matter as well. Far more than warm words are being provided by the Government. We have been working very closely on real joint work between the CPS and the police. We know that that has significantly increased the number of successful prosecutions in rape and serious sexual offence cases. We are now rolling out a similar but not identical form of working in domestic abuse cases. She will be pleased to know that, in her CPS area, the volume of adult rape suspects charged has gone up 41% in the last year.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Does the Attorney General agree that it is important to remember that, where there is sufficient evidence to put a case before a jury, the conviction rate for rape and serious sexual offences is entirely consistent and on a par with that for other serious violent offences? Is not the real challenge to ensure that the quality of the evidence presented by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service is sufficient to bring charges in the first place? That was the issue highlighted in the joint inspection report. Is not that where we should be paying the most attention?
The Attorney General
Well, this is a Justice Committee alumni session and it is always good to hear from our Chair. He makes, as we would all expect, an important point. It is true that the CPS can prosecute only the cases that are referred to it. It then works out which ones to prosecute using a two-stage legal test. If we strip out the guilty pleas, the CPS is running at a conviction rate of between 50% and 60%. It always prosecutes where there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to do so.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Attorney General has been discussing rape prosecution statistics. National World reported last month that there have been 1,600 cases over the past five years in which a suspect accused of and investigated for rape ended up being charged with a lesser offence. We all know that that type of under-charging is not uncommon, but the allegation in National World was that those 1,600 cases were then counted towards the charge rate for rape, even though no one had been charged with a rape offence. Can the Attorney General tell us whether that is true and, if so, does it mean that the charge rate for rape is even lower than we currently think?
The Attorney General
I, too, saw that report, and I asked for further clarification of the material within it. I have been told that, for a force to have charged an alternative offence, the facts and the evidence must be extremely similar and must relate to the victim and the circumstances. I have also been told—although I have not dug into every single one of those cases—that some of the reporting that the right hon. Lady refers to may relate to historic sexual abuse and that may explain some of the figures.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
By long-standing convention, whether the Law Officers have been asked to provide advice, and the contents of any such advice, is not disclosed outside Government.
Drew Hendry
Nearly 200 civil society organisations covering human trafficking, modern slavery, asylum and refugees have called on the Government to immediately withdraw the Illegal Migration Bill because, as it stands, it will breach multiple conventions and agreements in international law. Will the Attorney General work with her colleagues to revise, review and change these provisions, or is she happy to underline that hers is a lawbreaking Government?
The Attorney General
As I said, there is a long-standing convention that means I cannot go into the legal advice that may or may not have been given. I can say simply that we do consider the Bill to be consistent with our international obligations.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Attorney General will know that concern has been expressed on both sides of the House that the Bill will make it even harder to successfully prosecute traffickers. In short, that is because victims will not come forward if it simply means they are going to be detained and then removed to Rwanda. What is the Attorney General going to do about that?
The Attorney General
I am sorry, but once again, I cannot go into the content of any legal advice that might have been given. I would, however, refer the hon. Gentleman to the explanatory notes that accompany the Illegal Migration Bill, which set out the circumstances in which ECAT is operating at the moment.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
The SFO has implemented wide-ranging reforms following the recommendations made by Sir David Calvert-Smith and Brian Altman KC. The SFO’s strategic plan sets out a programme to modernise, build on capabilities and protect the UK’s reputation as a safe place to do business.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Just how much detail will the Solicitor General require to properly implement Sir David’s recommendation on oversight? We need to keep a tight rein on the remaining tenure of the current director, do we not?
The Solicitor General
As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. I am sure he will have seen the written ministerial statement that was laid before the House yesterday. The update confirmed that the planned review is ongoing. Additionally, since April this year, case lists prepared for superintendents’ meetings include all cases that may have required case consent and, importantly, there is more explicit signposting to high-risk cases.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Could we talk about the fraud strategy, which, sadly, is itself a bit of a fraud? As revealed by Spotlight on Corruption, the new national fraud squad is patched together with £100 million already announced last year and 400 officers, up to 300 of whom are already in post. With no new money and precious few new staff, how on earth will that make a dent in the £6.8 billion a year lost to consumer fraud, let alone the £21 billion a year in public sector fraud that this Government let run rife?
The Solicitor General
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome the strategy. He was calling for it, and the shadow Attorney General, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), was calling for it at the last Attorney General questions. We promised that it would be delivered soon—I remember that exchange—and, indeed, it was delivered soon after those questions. He will know that that strategy sits within the Home Office, which is absolutely right, and I will continue to work with the Home Office on the fraud strategy. I am sure he will be pleased, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) was, with the written ministerial statement yesterday specifically on the subject of this Question.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
We are committed to increasing the volume of prosecutions and supporting more victims of domestic abuse. For example, we have ensured that victims now have much longer to report offences.
Selaine Saxby
Can my right hon. and learned Friend outline what is being done to encourage the reporting of rape and sexual assault in rural areas, where victims may be less likely to report these crimes due to distant support services?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her rural area. She will be pleased to know that, in the south-west England CPS area, we consistently see one of the highest conviction rates for rape and domestic abuse. Her area is covered by Operation Soteria, which is testing new ways of working between the police and the CPS.
Bob Blackman
The breakdown of a relationship is a particular stigma for women in families from the Indian subcontinent, many of whom are forced to either remain in coercive relationships or return to their abuser. What measures could my right hon. and learned Friend take to ensure that those women are given full support through the Crown Prosecution Service and assisted to rebuild their lives?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend is a great campaigner for Harrow East and all the communities that live there. He will be pleased to know that CPS London is also working hard: this week, it is holding an event in his constituency to develop the domestic abuse joint justice plan, where colleagues from across the criminal justice system will come together to increase prosecutions in the cases he has outlined.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill will extend the Serious Fraud Office’s pre-investigative powers, allowing it to compel people to furnish the SFO with information earlier in cases of domestic corruption and fraud.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his answer. Will he agree to meet me and a number of whistleblowers at his earliest convenience? We will provide him with evidence of corruption and fraud in financial institutions, financial regulators and the judiciary.
The Solicitor General
The Financial Conduct Authority rightly published guidelines in July 2017 referring back to the money laundering regulations of that year. The hon. Gentleman might want to direct his inquiries towards the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. In relation to his substantive question about prosecutions, it is of course right that both the SFO and the CPS operate independently. The Attorney General is responsible for safeguarding that independence, and she takes that role incredibly seriously.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
Yesterday, the Attorney General laid before the House a written ministerial statement outlining the progress made on the delivery of the recommendations made by Sir David, which demonstrated significant progress in implementing all 29 recommendations.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The husband of a constituent of mine was a powerful and strong professional footballer, and was defrauded of all his life’s savings and investments in a huge, organised, fraudulent scam. Since then, in spite of his losses and being the victim, he and many of his colleagues have been pushed to absolute bankruptcy by further claims from other Government Departments for consequential taxes and so on, on already fraudulent activities. What more can my hon. and learned Friend do to make sure that Government Departments do not further punish those victims?
The Solicitor General
I am very grateful indeed to my right hon. Friend for raising this case; she is right to do so, and I know that the Attorney General is familiar with the details of the case. I will just note one thing that may be of relevance and help my right hon. Friend: the CPS has recovered assets worth £480 million through confiscation orders, of which £105 million has been returned to victims of crime by way of compensation.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
As Attorney General, I am honoured to play an important role in upholding the rule of law, which is fundamental to our constitution. I thank the House of Lords Constitution Committee for its report. The Government published their response in March, and I am looking forward to appearing before the Committee next month.
Jeff Smith
The Constitution Committee said:
“The Government has now twice knowingly introduced legislation…which would breach the UK’s international obligations and in doing so, undermined the rule of law.”
The Committee was referring to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. Does this Attorney General accept that the Illegal Migration Bill is the third such example, and the first on her watch?
The Attorney General
No, I do not accept that. I am bound by the Law Officers’ convention mentioned earlier, so I cannot comment on advice, even that provided by previous Law Officers. With regard to the two earlier Bills that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Government published summaries of their legal position during the introduction of both Bills, and we did so more recently in February this year on the Windsor framework.
Net Migration Figures
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on net migration figures.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
Net migration to the United Kingdom is far too high. That was already clear from the previous set of official data. The Office for National Statistics has today amended its previous published estimate of net migration for the year ending June 2022 to 606,000. The statistics published today indicate that net migration has flatlined since then. In the year ending December 2022, it estimates that net migration remained at 606,000. These particularly high figures are in large part due to temporary and exceptional factors, such as the UK’s Ukraine and Hong Kong British nationals overseas schemes. Last year, more than 200,000 Ukrainians and 150,000 Hong Kong British nationals overseas made use of the routes to life or time in the United Kingdom. Those schemes command broad support from the British public, and we were right to introduce them.
The Government remain committed to reducing overall net migration to sustainable levels. That is a solemn promise that we made to the British public in our manifesto, and we are unwavering in our determination to deliver it. This week, we announced steps to tackle the substantial rise in the number of student dependants coming to the UK. The package of measures will ensure that we can reduce migration while continuing to benefit from the skills and resources our economy needs, because universities should be in the education business, not the immigration business. We expect this package to have a tangible impact on net migration. Taken together with the easing of temporary factors, such as our exceptional humanitarian offers, we expect net migration to fall to pre-pandemic levels in the medium term.
The public rightly expect us to control our borders, whether that is stopping the boats and addressing illegal migration or ensuring that levels of legal migration do not place undue pressure on public services, housing supply or integration. The Government are taking decisive action on both counts. Under the points-based system that we introduced post Brexit, we can control immigration, we must control immigration, and we will.
Yvette Cooper
Today’s extraordinary figures, including the doubling of the number of work visas since the pandemic, show that the Conservatives have no plan and no grip on immigration. They show the chaos in this Government. Work visas are up 119% since before the pandemic. The Conservatives have totally failed to tackle endemic skills shortages and get people back to work. Net migration is more than twice the level that Ministers were aiming for and considerably more than the Home Secretary’s claimed aims. The asylum backlog is at a record high—the opposite of the Prime Minister’s promise to clear the backlog this year. Less than 1% of last year’s small boat arrivals have had a decision. Where is the Home Secretary, who is in charge of these policies? She has gone to ground. There are reports that she is not even going to do media. She has not come to this House. She is in internal meetings—presumably, more private courses arranged by civil servants. What is the point of her?
Net migration should come down and we would expect it to do so, but the continued gap between the Government’s rhetoric and the reality is very damaging. Rightly, the UK has given support to Ukraine and to Hongkongers. Rightly, we welcome international students who bring substantial benefits, but changes on family are sensible. International recruitment will always be important so that we get the skills and talent we need, but we have a major increase in employers turning to overseas recruitment, and the Government have no plan to increase training or to properly tackle those skills shortages here at home.
On health and social care, one of the biggest areas, why will the Minister not agree to Labour’s plan to increase the training for nurses and doctors in the UK, paid for by getting rid of the non-doms exemption? Will he ditch the unfair 20% wage discount that means that shortage occupations can undercut and pay below the going rate, making it even harder to get the training, skills and fair recruitment we need? Everyone should be paid the going rate.
There has been no action at all to address the huge backlog in the asylum system and to make sure that claims are properly processed. Immigration is important to this country, and we need a system that works, but it has to be properly controlled and managed, rather than the chaos that the Government have created.
Robert Jenrick
The Labour party feigns interest in cutting net migration, but I can assure the right hon. Lady that nobody is buying it. Last week, the chair of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), said that under Labour net migration would go up in the short term. The leader of the Labour party stood on a campaign pledge to defend freedom of movement if the UK remained outside the EU. He has said that there is a
“racist undercurrent which permeates all immigration law”.
Does the shadow Home Secretary agree with that?
At every possible opportunity, Labour Members have voted against every measure this Government have brought forward to control migration. They voted against ending free movement and, at every turn, they voted against measures to tackle illegal migration. Just recently, they voted against the Illegal Migration Bill. The truth is that the Labour party has no interest in controlled and orderly migration. The Conservative party is taking tangible steps to bring down net migration. Yesterday, we took a decisive step to clamp down on student dependants, because universities should be selling education, not immigration. Belatedly, the shadow Home Secretary says she agrees with that. The Conservative party made a solemn promise to the British public to reduce net migration. Thanks to Brexit, we now have the tools at our disposal to do that. We can and we must deliver.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am sorry that, while my right hon. Friend was replying to those questions, four of the Labour Front Benchers were talking at the same time. I think that was to disguise the fact that their spokesperson appeared to agree with virtually every sensible element of the Government’s immigration control policy.
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me about this? Beyond the admission order office, there is the memorial plaque for the Kindertransport. Some of those who feel most strongly against immigration now feel proud of what we did then. We have to remember that there were then and there are now tens of millions of people around the world suffering because of violence in their own countries, and there are others with bad Governments who stop them having economic success where they are. Can I say that, as well as having a good immigration policy, we ought to do all we can around the world to have better governance and a flexible economic system, so that people can be happy living where they are, not feeling that they have to come here for refuge?
Robert Jenrick
I strongly agree with the Father of the House. We have made two very significant interventions in the last two years. The first was to provide sanctuary here in the United Kingdom for Hong Kong BNOs, to whom we have a moral and historical obligation, to enable them to escape creeping authoritarianism in Hong Kong and make a new life here in the UK. We are proud of that, and I expect that, in the years to come, that scheme will be looked back on as a great success for this country. Secondly, the Ukraine schemes have now led to 200,000 Ukrainians coming to the UK and seeking sanctuary here, with hundreds of thousands of British people opening up their homes to support them. Those were great schemes.
We want to ensure schemes such as those can continue, and that the UK can be an even greater force for good in the world. That does not mean, however, that we should go slow on further measures to bring down net migration, because net migration does place very significant burdens on communities in respect of housing, public services and our ability to integrate people. That is why we made further interventions this week, and we will consider further ones in the future.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Can I start by recognising the amazing contribution of all those who have come to make the UK their home, whether they are refugees or students, care workers, nurses, hospitality workers or anything else? We on the SNP Benches say thank you. Of course, it was right to welcome Ukrainians and BNOs from Hong Kong in 2022, and we welcome that as well. I really hope that British politics will not descend back into a horrible competition about who is going to be toughest on immigration.
Ministers often give us a nice soundbite about how they want a migration system that works for the whole of the UK. We say that is fine, but it does not mean that precisely the same policies need to apply everywhere. In Scotland, we have no need or desire for policies that are going to put international students off, keep families apart or make it harder to recruit the workers we need. Does the Minister have anything to say about the unique challenges faced by different parts of the UK and how those shape immigration policy? Will he even look again at the remote areas pilot scheme, which was recommended by the Migration Advisory Committee, and sought and voted for by the Scottish Parliament?
Robert Jenrick
I was not expecting a question today arguing that net migration was too low—that seems to be the position of the SNP—but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point; we need a pragmatic approach to particular sectors that are facing skills shortages, and we need to think about regional disparities across the whole United Kingdom. We do not believe that there should be separate immigration systems for the nations of the UK, and the evidence bears that out: there is no material difference in either unemployment or economic inactivity between Scotland and the United Kingdom average. We do take account, through the shortage occupation list, of particular sectors that are facing challenges, and some are of course more focused in some parts of the UK than in others. Earlier in the week, for example, we decided to add further fishing occupations to the shortage occupation list in order to support the offshore fishing industry, which I hope will be supported by the hon. Gentleman and fellow Scottish MPs who have connections with the industry.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Some people in the Treasury seem to think that a good way to grow the economy is to fill the country with ever more people, but that is bad for productivity and bad for British workers, who are being undercut by mass migration from all over the world. Why is it that under the points-based system we allow into the country people earning only £26,000 a year, while the median UK salary is £33,000? Is not an obvious solution to insist that everybody who comes in is skilled and earns the median UK salary, as then we can boost productivity and get British people back to work?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which he has made in the past and with which I have a lot of sympathy. We both believe that we need a controlled migration system and that net migration has a number of impacts on communities, including further pressure on public services and housing supply and making it more difficult to integrate people into our country and maintain community cohesion. In some instances, high levels of net migration also put downward pressure on wages for the domestic economy and enable some employers to reach for the easy lever of importing foreign labour rather than training up their own British workforce. It is for those reasons what we created the points-based system that has a salary threshold—a freedom we only have as a result of leaving the European Union—and if further changes to that system are necessary in the future, we will make them.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Local residents in my constituency are rightly shocked and concerned to hear that the Minister’s Department is planning to house 300 asylum seekers in the Stradey Park hotel, a totally disproportionate number for the village of Furnace and local services. Will the Minister meet me to hear about local concerns, and what is he doing to prevent the need to commandeer the Stradey Park hotel and to clear the Home Office backlog of 160,000 undetermined claims so that those from safe countries can be returned and those who are genuine refugees can move out of hotels and be integrated in small numbers into suitable communities?
Robert Jenrick
I am delighted to hear that the Government have just chalked up another vote for the Illegal Migration Bill, because Members cannot say they want open borders, with unlimited numbers of individuals coming into this country, whether legally or illegally, but they do not want them in their own constituency—it is an inconsistent approach. If the hon. Lady feels so strongly and is getting such strong representations from her constituents, she should support the Government’s efforts to clamp down on illegal migration.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
When they take effect, what estimate has the Minister got for the impact of the measures that the Government announced yesterday?
Robert Jenrick
We believe that the measures we announced yesterday with regard to student dependants will have a tangible effect on the number of student dependants coming into the country, which, as the figures published by the Office for National Statistics show, is currently very considerable. It is not right that universities are in some cases in the immigration business rather than the teaching and education one. We are clamping down on those practices and that will help us bring down net migration in the medium term. But let me be abundantly clear to my right hon. Friend: net migration is far too high and we need to take measures to bring it down. We are not complacent; we want to make good on our promise to the British public.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Immigration Minister seems to be making a very good case for increased wage inflation. I wonder what his Treasury colleagues make of the overall impact of that on the economy. Sector after sector, whether agriculture, hospitality, fishing or care services, tell us that they all need access to more skilled staff, and they simply do not have that access at the moment. He stands at the Dispatch Box and talks about adding fishing to the shortage occupation list, but he completely ignores the fact that his and the Home Secretary’s refusal to lower the standard of English language skills required renders that absolutely meaningless for the fishing industry and, as a result of his decision, fishing boats in my constituency and right around the coast are tied up today. When will he start listening to business? When did the Conservative party stop doing that?
Robert Jenrick
The case I was making was that we sustainably increase productivity by encouraging our employers to invest in their workforce and in technology, rather than simply by reaching for the easy lever of further international labour. With respect to the fishing sector, this measure that we have made this week has been broadly welcomed by the fishing sector. I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman if his contention is that we should allow people who cannot speak or write in English into the United Kingdom on visas that have a route to settlement. That is wrong. The standard of English that we maintain is a low standard, and we need it for health and safety at the workplace, to prevent exploitation and to ensure that people can integrate into our communities. That is absolutely the right approach.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
People who come to this country and want to work here and add value are welcome. Clearly the concern is the illegal migration figures, which have continued to grow. Given that the net migration figures have almost flatlined, will my right hon. Friend lay out what has happened over that period of time and what his plans are for the future to ensure that the total comes down?
Robert Jenrick
The ONS has changed its methodology and increased the estimate it made in the middle of last year, to say that net migration was 606,000 at that point, when it previously published its data, and it sees no evidence that it has increased since then, which suggests that numbers are now flatlining. There are reasons to believe that the number of individuals coming on our humanitarian schemes from Hong Kong and Ukraine will reduce over the course of the year, although it is difficult to predict that with certainty, particularly with respect to Ukraine. The measures that we have taken this week with respect to student dependants will have a material impact, so it is reasonable to assume that numbers will now be on a downward trajectory. But I do not want to give any impression of complacency, because there is clearly a great deal more to be done. If we need to make further interventions, we will.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Government have clearly lost control of all aspects of immigration and migration. Labour voted against the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Illegal Migration Bill because we said that they would not work, and the figures show that they have not worked. Will the Minister explain why fewer than 1% of the people who arrived on small boats last year have had their asylum claims determined, and why the figure is so low?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman and his party have voted against every measure that the Government have brought forward to control migration, whether legal or illegal migration, so his contention that Labour would get control of migration is laughable. It is important that we bring the backlog of cases down. That is why the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I have set out a clear plan to do that. We see the dividends of that, and we expect the legacy backlog to be cleared over the course of the year, as we promised. It is not correct, however, to suggest that if illegal migrants’ claims are processed faster, that will reduce the number of people coming into the country. In all likelihood, that would lead to an increase.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The anger and frustration of my constituents has been focused on illegal migration up until now, but that anger and frustration will grow when they consider these legal migration figures. We are creating, roughly speaking, eight new parliamentary constituencies with this number. If that continues, it is clearly unsustainable. The Minister spoke about medium-term plans to reduce the numbers, but what my constituents want to know is what short-term plans there are. Other than those that have been announced recently, what else is the Department considering?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. I think few Members of this House have argued more consistently than I have that we need to build more homes and that there needs to be a proper join-up between the numbers coming in and the way we accommodate them. There are, I am afraid, intolerable pressures placed on the country’s public services and housing supply by sustained very high levels of net migration. That is one of the reasons why we need to take action. We announced a package of measures this week, which includes changes to the rules with respect to student dependants and increased enforcement activity to clamp down on egregious abuse of the system by education agents. As I said in answer to earlier questions, if we need to make more changes, we will do so.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
There is a huge gap between the Government’s rhetoric and reality. The Minister just said that the net migration figure would return to pre-pandemic levels in the medium term, so can he please say what his assessment is for the net migration figure for the year ahead?
Robert Jenrick
As I said in answer to earlier questions, we expect numbers to reduce. We are taking further steps this week, which we think will make a material difference. If we need to do more, we will, because net migration is far too high. I hope the hon. Gentleman, by his question, agrees with me in that regard, and that he will support the measures we take to bring numbers down.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
If it were possible for everyone who crosses the channel illegally in a small boat to be returned to France, that would be not only in our interests but in the interests of France, because we would stop people buffering on its north-east coast to try to get into this country. I know it is very difficult, but what are the chances that that could happen, because it would solve the problem?
Robert Jenrick
We are making considerable efforts to deepen our relationship with the French Government. In fact, next week I will be in Paris to meet our counterparts in the French Interior Ministry. The Prime Minister achieved, in short succession, two significant deals that are leading to an increase in activity on the beaches, increased joint working on counter-organised immigration crime, and a new joint working centre in Lille that I will be visiting shortly. If there was a possibility of a readmissions agreement with France, that is certainly something the Government would welcome and we have made that clear. In our conversations with both President Macron and the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, we offered a range of solutions that could lead to that.
I would just say, however, that the previous readmissions agreement—Dublin—which operated during our time in the European Union, was not successful. In the last years of its operation, more people were being brought from France to the United Kingdom than were sent from the UK to France, so this is not a panacea. But if there are ways in which we can take this forward, we will.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Tories on the Government Benches and the Tory-lite Labour party would have the public believe that a rise in net migration is something to fear. That could not be further from the truth. Immigrants across all four nations make a contribution to society, politically, economically and socially, from running small local businesses in our high streets to developing groundbreaking technology and working in the NHS—they are integral to society. In my maiden speech, I called for immigration to be devolved. Scotland wants immigration and our needs are different. Does the Minister agree that now is the time for immigration to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament?
Robert Jenrick
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. As I have already said in answer to other questions, there is a limit to the number of individuals who can come into any country, regardless of the benefits they might bring, because we have finite resources, for example in housing and access to public services. Independent advisers, including the Migration Advisory Committee, have said that there is a range of reasons why in some cases migrants choose to come to other parts of the UK over Scotland. There is a role for the Scottish Government in tackling those issues.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Unsustainable levels of migration continue to have a significant impact on housing in the south-east. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must do all we can to reach sustainable levels of migration? On illegal migration and processing of asylum claims, we must ensure that the Home Office cracks down on the people smugglers while ensuring that the likes of Scotland take its fair share of people, rather than continuing to turn up here and virtue signal.
Robert Jenrick
I strongly agree. It is critical that we take action to bring down net migration. My hon. Friend represents a community where there is intense pressure on housing, and it is a struggle for many young people and those on lower incomes to get on the housing ladder. We must be cognisant of that when setting our migration policies. He is right on the SNP; it is a party of humanitarian nimbys. Its Members come here and preach, but their words are always greater than their actions.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Somewhat unusually, this morning we seem to have learned something new from the Dispatch Box: the Home Office’s inability to process applications, resulting in many people living in hotels across the country—including in Bristol—means that the holding pattern will remain for some time. In fact, that may be a deliberate policy, as the Minister said that if they were processed, there would be more. That is what he said—he can clarify. How long are people expected to live in hotels in cities across the country? What support is being given to local authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) just asked, and what is the Government’s ultimate plan for these people?
Robert Jenrick
I did not say that. The hon. Lady should check the record after this urgent question. I said that the Labour party’s approach, as I understand it, is to let more people in and to process their claims faster. I gently pointed out that that is very unlikely to result in fewer illegal migrants crossing the channel. We need to suffuse our entire system with deterrence. That is why we are bringing forward new sites, such as the large sites and barges, and the Illegal Migration Bill. We want to clear the backlog, but above all we want to stop people coming in the first place. The sustainable answer to that is to break the business model of the people smugglers and back the Illegal Migration Bill.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Today’s figures are too high, and my constituents will expect to see them fall. I welcome what the Office for National Statistics has said about them flatlining, and I welcome, again, what my right hon. Friend announced yesterday about student dependant visas, which will help them to fall. Does he agree that my constituency will not buy the line from the shadow Home Secretary, because the Opposition is led by an arch remainer who favours freedom of movement, and it has voted against every single measure that we have brought to control legal and illegal migration, including our Bill to stop the boats?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is right. Nobody believes the position of the Labour party because time and again, when it is offered the opportunity to vote for legislation to tighten control of migration, whether legal or illegal, it always votes against it. We all know that our borders would be open under a future Labour Government. That is why we need to take the steps that we have, and why his constituents should continue to back him and the Conservative party.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The number of people waiting for asylum applications to be processed for more than six months has risen by 10,000 to 128,000. The Minister suggested that reducing the backlog, which is a Government objective, will not make any difference. Can he tell us whether he does want to reduce it, whether he thinks it will not make any difference and on what basis he is making that assessment?
Robert Jenrick
I have been clear that we want to reduce the backlog, as part of our 10-point plan to tackle illegal migration. We have put in place a series of measures to reduce bureaucracy, to streamline the process and to double the number of asylum decision makers. Those investments are already paying dividends. We are confident that the legacy backlog will be cleared over the course of the year.
The point I was making, which I am happy to reiterate, is that the faster the process, the more pull factor there is to the United Kingdom. That is not a reason to maintain an inefficient process, but we need a process where deterrence is suffused through every element, else we will never break the business model of the people smugglers.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
My old home state of Western Australia has just announced even further investment in additional support for international students, saying:
“It is important we provide international students…with a safe and welcoming environment for them to flourish in”.
Education is a global market, so can the Minister explain why it is a good thing that international students simply take their money, skills and enthusiasm elsewhere, deterred by this crackdown on their families and the support they offer, rather than choose the UK, where life for them is made ever more difficult?
Robert Jenrick
I presume the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that the Government have met their target of 600,000 international students coming to the UK every year—as set by our international education strategy— 10 years early. Last year, 605,000 international students came, and I suspect the number this year will be higher still. There is absolutely no sense that the Government are reneging on those commitments or creating an environment that is unwelcoming to international students. We want universities to focus on teaching, and not inadvertently create a backdoor to immigration status here in the UK. That is why we have made the changes we have made this week, which have been broadly welcomed by both the public and the sector.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Office for National Statistics has this morning published the record net migration figure of 606,000, including 114,000 long-term arrivals from Ukraine and 52,000 from Hong Kong, so well below 170,000 in total. We all remember a previous Conservative Prime Minister falsely promising the British people that he would bring net migration down to the tens of thousands, and the last-but-one Prime Minister promising that he would bring net migration figures to below 250,000, although he also failed miserably. I will not mention the previous Prime Minister, because she did not even last two months before crashing the economy. The last Conservative party manifesto pledged that
“overall numbers will come down”.
How is that going? What went wrong?
Robert Jenrick
We would not have the tools to tackle net migration had we taken the hon. Gentleman’s advice and remained within the European Union. It is only as a result of our new freedoms that we can control our immigration system. He has voted against every possible opportunity to tackle either legal or illegal migration, so on this argument he has no foot to stand on.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
In reviewing the net migration numbers, has the Minister had time to review the number of missing unaccompanied migrant children in the United Kingdom? The figure last week stood at over 200. If he has not had time to review that, will he come back to the House to tell us how many of those missing children have been found and what his Government are doing to make sure the situation never happens again?
Robert Jenrick
I have looked into the issue in great detail. I have spent time with officials from the Home Office and local authorities where we have hotels for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, speaking privately to the social workers and support staff who care for them, to ensure that we have the right processes in place. I am confident that we do. The hotels have a range of very considerable support around them. When a young person goes missing from a hotel, all the same processes are followed as for any other missing person, whether that be a child of a migrant or our own children.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The shadow Secretary of State raised very important questions about work visas that the Minister has not yet addressed. The number of work visas has doubled since the pandemic. Are the Government satisfied with that increase?
Robert Jenrick
We want a system that enables businesses to bring in foreign workers where there are sustained skills shortages, but we want British employers to focus, in the first instance, on training British workers to fill those vacancies, because there are large numbers of people who are economically inactive. The first duty of employers and the Government is to help those people back into the workforce.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Immigrants make an invaluable contribution to our economy and enrich our communities. International students, in particular, are needed and valued, especially in this post-Brexit labour shortage era. The reactionary and hostile plans that this Government are determined to put in place, as well as the Minister’s tone in the Chamber today, speak clearly of a desire to impede our ability to make the right arrangements for Scotland. Does he recognise how out of tune his Government are with the views of people in Scotland and with the needs of the Scottish economy? Does he not appreciate that it is absolutely essential that we have the powers to make the right immigration arrangements for Scotland, in order that our economy can thrive?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady’s argument is not borne out by any available evidence. There is no material difference in unemployment and economic activity between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The reports produced by the Migration Advisory Committee raise a number of questions for the Scottish Government about the policies that they could implement to make Scotland a more attractive destination for migrants and, indeed, workers from elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
There are now 172,758 people in the growing asylum backlog. I have met asylum seekers in my constituency who have been housed for well over a year in overcrowded hotel rooms, many of them with small children who have nowhere to play. Will the Government finally admit that their illegal Illegal Migration Bill will make the backlog, and those people’s traumatic wait, worse rather than better?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady is entirely wrong about that. The Illegal Migration Bill creates a fast and simple scheme whereby those who come here illegally, in small boats or otherwise, will have their claims processed not in months or years but in days or weeks, and will either be returned home to a safe country such as Albania or sent to a safe third country such as Rwanda. That will break the business model of the people smugglers by infusing the system with deterrence, and will bring about a substantial reduction in the numbers entering the country in this manner.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In Bath the hospitality sector is a big driver of the local economy, but many of our wonderful hotels, restaurants, bars and pubs struggle to find enough staff, and there is the danger of closure or reduced working hours, which are bad for the economy. The Government’s chaotic approach of making and breaking headline-grabbing immigration targets has completely eroded public trust, including that of employers. When will they come clean with the public, acknowledge that legal migration is driven by the labour market, and listen to employers and others in Bath’s hospitality sector?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady seems to be arguing for significantly higher levels of legal migration than those that we have today. Given that 235,000 work-related visas were issued last year, which is a substantial number, I do not think it wise to advocate a significant further increase. We want to see the numbers coming down.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has already accepted that we need immigration in this country to fill the skills gaps. Over the last 15 years, we have heard a number of vague promises about bringing immigration down—for instance, as we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the former Prime Minister David Cameron wanted to bring it down to the tens of thousands—but that has clearly not been achieved. I am not trying to score political points, but may I ask the Minister what level of migration he considers to be right for this country, whether he can give a specific figure, and whether it is achievable in the next decade?
Robert Jenrick
We have made a clear manifesto commitment to see numbers falling sustainably, and this week we are taking action that will have a material impact. As I have said a number of times this morning, net migration is far too high, and I worry that that is placing intolerable pressure on public services, on housing supply and on our ability in this country to integrate new arrivals. Those are the reasons why we need to take action, and if we need to take further steps we will do so.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I think the Minister needs to get his story straight on the asylum backlog. Is he saying that he wants to get it down—in which case he is not doing a very good job, because it is up to 172,000—or is he saying that he is keeping it high, with all the attendant costs and misery, in order to deter fresh claims?
Robert Jenrick
I have made it very clear that we want to get the backlog down, but I have also pointed out that Labour’s only policy in respect of illegal migration is to clear the backlog faster. Open borders, faster processing —that is not going to work.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Minister and I will clearly never agree on whether immigration is too high, but we might be able to agree that it is too low when it comes to rural areas and the need for seasonal workers in the agrifood sector, given that a shortage of such workers left millions of pounds of fresh produce to rot in the fields. The Scottish Government have called for a bespoke rural visa scheme to help bring the labour that is needed to Scotland. Will the Minister agree to meet me so that we can tease out some of these issues, perhaps free from the pressures to generate headlines in tomorrow’s press?
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to discuss that issue in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has raised it today. I am not persuaded that it is practical to create an immigration system whereby we have visas specific to certain parts of the United Kingdom or to rural as opposed to urban areas. We have a seasonal agricultural workers scheme; we recently announced that that will continue next year, and offered to increase it to 55,000 people a year. Last year, the scheme was capped at 45,000 and we had fewer applications than that, so it seems to be operating at the correct level, but we have to be careful about abuse, and last year, I am afraid, we saw a rise in the number of people who came across on that scheme and either were exploited by gangmasters or put in asylum claims. It would not be right to create a system that led to an increase in either of those activities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister knows that I believe strongly that we have a moral obligation to help widows, children and orphans. That is why I believe we must have a robust immigration and asylum system that allows the vulnerable and the needy to find their new home. A constituent of mine, a hard-working young man, is seeking to bring his brother and his daughter to Northern Ireland—to my town of Newtownards, by the way—after losing all the rest of their family in the Turkish earthquake, yet we are at an impasse, which I find quite frustrating. What changes can be made to prevent an influx of unmarried young man but instead to focus on allowing in these devastated lone parents and their families?
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to look at that specific case, if the hon. Gentleman wishes. We do have schemes for dependants of migrants into the UK, and the figures published by the Office for National Statistics today show significant numbers of migrants’ dependants or family members of British citizens entering the country.
On the broader point that the hon. Gentleman regularly champions, which is that the UK is a force for good in the world in welcoming people for humanitarian purposes, the numbers published today show that the UK is one of the world’s leading countries for humanitarian visa routes. We should be proud of that and not accept anyone saying otherwise.
Business of the House
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
Before I give the business of the House, I should like to make a brief statement, Mr Speaker.
First, I associate myself with the remarks made in the House this week about the anniversary of the Manchester Arena attack and the murder of Lee Rigby. My thoughts are with all those affected by those tragic events.
Yesterday, we had the sad news that the world has lost an icon, Tina Turner; but in the early hours of this morning, we in this place also lost our own larger-than-life character: our former colleague Karen Lumley, the Member for Redditch from 2010 to 2017. As well as the work she did for her constituents and in the service of Parliament on the Welsh Affairs, Finance and Transport Committees, and in government as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Health, Karen was a force of nature and a force for good. We will miss her, her amazing hairdos, and the joy she brought us all. We will cherish our memories of her. I know the whole House will want to send our love to her family, especially Richard, Lizzie and Chris, and all who knew and loved her.
Penny Mordaunt
She meant a lot to all of us.
The business for the week commencing 5 June will include:
Monday 5 June—General debate on the role of local government in reaching net zero, followed by a general debate on delivering new housing supply. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 6 June—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the British Nationality (Regularisation of Past Practice) Bill.
Wednesday 7 June—Opposition day (17th allotted day). Debate in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 8 June—General debate on National Carers Week, followed by a general debate on the work of the Council of Europe. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee
Friday 9 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 12 June includes:
Monday 12 June—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, followed by a debate on risk-based exclusion of Members of Parliament.
Tuesday 13 June—Remaining stages of the Procurement Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 14 June—Opposition day (10th allotted day, second part). Debate in the name of the Scottish National party—subject to be announced. Followed by a general debate—subject to be confirmed.
Thursday 15 June—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 16 June—The House will not be sitting.
Members will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the summer recess on 20 July and return on Monday 4 September; rise for the conference recess at the close of business on Tuesday 19 September and return on Monday 16 October; and rise for the Christmas recess at the close of business on Tuesday 19 December and return on Monday 8 January 2024.
I will announce further recess dates and future business in the usual way.
Thangam Debbonaire
It is a sad moment when we lose one of our colleagues. I know Karen Lumley was loved across this place, and colleagues, including my former hon. Friend Louise Ellman and others, really appreciated the personal support she gave them and her dedicated work on the Transport Committee. We join the Leader of the House in sending our love and condolences to her family.
I will come on to Tina Turner shortly, but I also want to mention the parliamentary football team, who I hear have a match against the Scottish parliamentary football team. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) tells me he is the star player —who knew? We will find out.
We all join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the queen of rock and roll, Tina Turner. She was an icon, a heroine to the domestic violence movement and a role model to all of us women doing our best work in later life. Perhaps the Leader of the House could draw inspiration from Tina today and search river deep, mountain high—there will be more—for all the Government’s missing legislation. Where is it?
Let us start with the Leader of the House’s failure to bring forward the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which includes important protections for dogs and cats, and would clamp down on the cruel practice of puppy smuggling. Labour has been calling on the Government for years to stop unscrupulous breeders cashing in by bringing puppies and kittens into this country with no concern for their welfare, which that Bill would have sorted out. Having already carried over the Bill from one chaotic Tory parliamentary Session to the next chaotic Tory parliamentary Session, the Bill will now expire on 8 June. I understand that, in the ministerial statement later today, the Government now plan to scrap the Bill, which is shocking. I have raised this at least five times over the past eight months. Is this Prime Minister so weak that he cannot even bring himself to stand up against evil puppy smugglers? What a way to run a Government.
Brace yourself for more Tina puns, Mr Speaker. Labour wants our schools to be simply the best—I am trying not to sing, but it is really hard—but the Government scrapped the Schools Bill. It was left to Labour to stand up for the safety of schoolchildren this week, when we tried to force Ministers to reveal the extent to which school buildings are crumbling on the Government’s watch. For over a year, the Department for Education has known that the risk of building collapse is very likely, so why did the Leader of the House and her colleagues continue the Conservative cover-up and hide from parents exactly which school buildings are dangerous?
Also missing in those deep rivers and high mountains was the leasehold reform part 2 Bill. This week, it was, again, Labour that brought forward a motion calling on the Housing Secretary to keep his promise to the thousands of people in Bristol West and the millions across the country who are living in leasehold properties. Labour forced the Government into committing to end the sale of new private leasehold houses and replace existing leaseholds for flats with commonhold. All that was needed despite a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment and promises made almost every year by successive Housing Secretaries since then. The Tories are rowing back on their promises, and the Housing Secretary did not even bother to turn up—he rarely does these days. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Housing Secretary will come to this House to tell us how he is going to implement Labour’s plan for leasehold reform, which this House voted for on Tuesday? Just to remind the Leader of the House, as well as what I have already mentioned we want to give greater powers to residents over the management of their homes in the interim and crack down on unfair fees. When will leasehold residents in Bristol West and beyond see the Government get on with implementing these measures?
Finally, we clearly do need another hero—[Interruption.] Well spotted. Instead of having this weak Prime Minister spending all his time watching his back, we could have a Labour Prime Minister showing real leadership and strong action. We have shown this week that we are the party with a plan and we have the leader to deliver it.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for that. I join her in wishing the football team well and in what she says about the great Tina Turner, who was a complete icon. What a woman, what a life and what a legacy she leaves all of us.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not feel able to welcome the good news that we have had this week. Thanks to the stoicism of the British people and the hard work of their Government, inflation is falling, as are energy costs, and the International Monetary Fund has upgraded its growth forecasts for the UK. There has also been more inward investment, with £18 billion from the G7 host nation, to mention just one, and more funding for our schools. She did not welcome the news of the vast improvements that our reforms in England, and phonics in particular, have brought. I would be happy to compare the track record of our school buildings programme in my constituency with the legacy left by Labour. I recall that when I came into this House, I made a freedom of information request to the Department for Education to find out how much traffic and correspondence there had been from my Labour predecessor on trying to rebuild our decaying schools—there had been none. Since then, we have had a number of schools completely rebuilt and a new university technical college, and that position is echoed around the country. Even if she did not want to mention any of that, she could have at least welcomed the price of a good bottle of plonk coming down, thanks to red tape being cut.
The hon. Lady mentions the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, whose measures are manifesto commitments. It joins a long list of animal welfare reforms that we have brought in: new regulations for minimum standards on meat chickens; a ban on the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens; CCTV being made mandatory in slaughterhouses in England; microchipping being made mandatory for dogs; the modernising of our licensing system; protecting animals via Finn’s law and Lucy’s law; passing the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019; implementing humane trapping standards; passing the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022; passing the Ivory Act 2018; and many other things. Clearly, there are further measures in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill that we want to bring forward and that are manifesto commitments. We are still committed to those measures. In the statement later today, Members will be able to see both our commitments and our plan to deliver them, and, I hope, the opportunity to deliver some of those measures faster than the Bill would have allowed. The same applies to leaseholder reform, which I have spoken about many times: we are committed to those statements.
We are making good progress. There has been a lot of chat this week about things trying to slow us down, including “the blob”, which I understand was a poor-quality production from the 1950s. It was about an amorphous, spineless, shape-shifting jelly that keeps changing its position on things, is red in colour and must be stopped at all costs for humanity’s sake. That is not the civil service; it sounds rather like the Labour party. I may have just hit upon a plan for our next party political broadcast.
Further business and further recess dates will be announced in the usual way.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
We are grateful to the Leader of the House for the way that she spoke about our late colleague and to the shadow Leader of House for her response.
Recently, the examiners classified the Holocaust Memorial Bill as hybrid. Will my right hon. Friend, in peacetime, refer to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee the comments of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and of those who lead the Holocaust Memorial Foundation that they welcomed the Bill passing this step and that the Government actually spent their time trying to oppose the Bill being classified as hybrid. I also refer the Government to something in the press notice that said that one holocaust survivor has had to wait nine years from the time that this proposal was put forward to getting to this stage, and that he hopes to be able to be there when the memorial is opened.
Under the present plans, assuming that the Bill gets through both Houses of Parliament, with or without amendments—probably with amendments—that memorial cannot be completed for another five to six years. I suggest that the Government consider having the memorial—not necessarily the big one in Victoria Tower Gardens, but a smaller, more appropriate one—either there, in College Green, or Parliament Square and recognise that the learning centre is well suited at the Imperial War Museum, where one of Dame Diane Lees’s tributes was to create both the learning centre and the holocaust galleries. Everyone can then be satisfied and the holocaust survivors may be able to see a memorial in their lifetime.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter and for suggesting a pragmatic way forward. My understanding is that that suggestion has been made and rejected, but he will know that the Government are very keen to ensure that a memorial can be built in the swiftest time possible, precisely because we want the remaining holocaust survivors to be able to witness that. I shall make sure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has heard his suggestions today.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I am sorry for the losses expressed by the Leader of the House, and we send our deepest condolences to all those affected, particularly the family and friends of Eilidh MacLeod.
I am not sure where to go with my business questions today. I could ask the Leader of the House about the £74 billion wasted in last year’s reckless September Budget and the resulting pain for householders, the questions hanging over the UK Government’s flagship freeport project and why the National Audit Office has not been asked to investigate it, the 4 million children living in poverty in the UK today because of Tory austerity, or the catastrophe of Brexit, which, of course, Scotland did not vote for. The truth is that it will not matter as the Leader of the House will once again ignore my question and instead read a pre-prepared script for the latest of her routine videos attacking Scotland’s elected Government, rather than answering for the actions of her own. So, I am afraid that it is in the spirit of hope rather than of conviction that I ask her this: can we have a debate in Government time in this Chamber on the infected blood scandal, so that the terrible accounts that those of us on the all-party group have heard from victims and their families might be told again and, hopefully, finally shame this Government into taking action now before it is too late for many of them. It is too late for Randolph Peter Gordon-Smith, the late father of my constituents, Justine and Rachel, but it is not too late for them to be treated equitably as the executors of his estate, and to be given proper compensation for all the traumas that they suffered as carers during the dreadful and distressing decline of their father until death finally overcame him.
In the light of the second interim report, Justine cannot understand—and neither can I—why registration of the estates of the unrecognised infected deceased cannot be completed through existing support schemes now, using the same mechanism as the first interim payment, without further complicating and prolonging matters through the establishment of an arm’s length body, as the report proposes. Do not these families deserve justice now where it can be delivered? I would be most grateful to the Leader of the House if she addressed that question before reading out the video script written for her.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks about Karen and the other remarks she made.
I admire the hon. Lady’s consistency in her lack of situational awareness. She mentioned management of budgets, and I remind the House that the SNP Government have mismanaged their budget; despite cutting £1.2 billion of spending on public services, they had a £100 million overspend. I remind her to compare our record on caring for children, where we have 400,000 fewer children in absolute poverty than when we took office in 2010.
As I mentioned in my remarks to the shadow Leader of the House, we have also had good news of improving life opportunities for children in England, with the good news that English schools have dramatically improved our reading performance for nine and 10-year-olds. We are fourth best in the world, having inherited a situation where, in 2012, only 58% of six-year-olds were able to read fluently.
In contrast, in Scotland, both on health and education the SNP is letting the children of Scotland down. We have the worst-ever gap between the richest and poorest pupils, thanks to botched reform; literacy rates were falling before the pandemic and they have dropped dramatically further still. The only thing the SNP has managed to increase in education is the tax burden on teachers.
The hon. Lady raises the very serious matter of the infected blood inquiry. I have had the privilege of meeting many of those who were infected and affected by that appalling scandal, and I went to hear some of the evidence that they gave at the inquiry. It may fall to us in this place, on our shift, to put that right, but we must put it right. There is not just the original injustice that was done to those people, many of whom were children at the time, but the further layers of injustice that have happened with regard to their financial resilience, as many of them lost their homes and were not able to work, facing the appalling stigma and hardship that came with that. We have to put that right. That is why this Government set up the compensation scheme review to run concurrently with that inquiry, because we very much wanted, when that inquiry reported, to be able to make amends for that scandal. It would be an excellent topic for debate and I know that many Members in this House would want to attend if a debate was secured.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
When are the Government planning to hold another debate on the situation in Ukraine? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is an important opportunity for the nation’s representatives to state their support for the Government’s policy—also supported by His Majesty’s Opposition—as a clear act of will that we are determined to see the Ukrainians reach a satisfactory outcome to this conflict, which means recovering all their territory? Will she consider having a debate on a motion setting out the Government’s policy for approval by the House?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that matter. I think all Members of this House will want to continue to show our resolve in supporting the people of Ukraine. There are clearly big decisions being taken at the moment in various international forums, including at NATO. I know many Members of this House have engagements with those international forums and would want to express the contribution they are making on the Floor of this House. I will certainly raise the request with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for answering the business question, for announcing the Backbench Business debates of 5 and 8 June, and for confirming that our Committee will determine the subject of debates on 15 June as well. We have pre-allocated for that day debates on celebrating Pride month and on Government migration policies. I notice that there is to be a general debate on Wednesday 14 June. I am sure that the Government are already thinking of this, but may I suggest to them that that debate should be about the 6th anniversary of Grenfell, which is the date that it would fall on?
We anticipate debates on departmental estimates in July. A trend has occurred whereby Select Committee Chairs and their Committees have applied for those debates, but I stress that we accept applications from any Back-Bench Member. We do not yet know exactly when estimates day debates will be scheduled, but we have been told that it will be in early July. Members are encouraged to review the note on estimates from the scrutiny unit, and to contact the Backbench Business Committee to apply for debates via the Table Office.
I had the privilege of seeing Tina Turner twice at Gateshead stadium, in 1990 and in 1996. She is a very sad loss. On both occasions, it was a sell-out 35,000 crowd. Of course, Gateshead stadium is also the home of Gateshead Football Club, which, I am sad to say, finished as runner- up in the FA Trophy at Wembley on Sunday. May I congratulate Halifax Town, the victors on the day?
Penny Mordaunt
Very good, Mr Speaker.
May I thank the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) for his work in advertising to colleagues—again, very successfully—the opportunities that his Committee brings for them to air their views on things that they care about. We have run debates on the anniversary of Grenfell, and he will know that there are ongoing discussions about that just to make sure that it is what everyone wants. I thank him for that.
My commiserations to the hon. Gentleman’s team, but he is also very good at congratulating the victor.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
Two years ago, Great Western Railway significantly reduced the direct train service between Bedwyn and Paddington. In this week’s timetable change, it has halved the number of carriages on the 7.45 train from Newbury to Reading, which has led to significant overcrowding. All that is causing significant headaches for my constituents who commute, many of whom have written to me. Can we have a debate in Government time to address the adequacy of GWR’s performance through the Newbury constituency and the wider south-east?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about the situation that my hon. Friend is dealing with. I will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State has heard the concerns that she has raised again today. It is absolutely vital that market towns, including those in her constituency, are properly served by the rail service. What her constituency is having to endure is, I am afraid, not appropriate.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Can we have a debate in Government time on the regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters? Privately owned e-scooters are uninsurable on public roads. Serious fires are caused by faulty lithium batteries and chargers, and thousands of bikes and scooters are just dumped on pavements every day. What should be a positive addition to transport is a hazard because of the Government’s failure to act
Penny Mordaunt
These are important matters. I know that organisations are changing their policy because of the newly discovered dangers of e-scooters. I will make sure that the Secretary of State hears the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. The hon. Gentleman will know that the next oral questions at which he can raise this matter will be on 8 June.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
May I join my right hon. Friend in sending love and condolences to the family of Karen Lumley? She was a great colleague.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is—as you know, Mr Speaker, as our president—a key organisation of the Commonwealth that is headquartered here in the UK. It wishes to change its status from a UK charity to be more properly recognised as an inter-parliamentary organisation. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House use her good offices to find time for my ten-minute rule Bill, which would enable the CPA to change its status, to make progress before we rise for the summer recess and help to secure the future of the CPA secretariat here in the UK?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work she is doing, which I know will be supported by Members across the House. We are incredibly proud to be the headquarters for the CPA and the incredible work that it does. We should retain that, and we want to retain that. She will know that I have made representations to the Foreign Secretary, and I know that he is working on this matter. I thank her for raising it again. I know that she will have not just my support but support from across the House in achieving that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The loss of the former Member for Redditch is keenly felt across the House and, although I did not know her personally, as I only entered Parliament in 2017, I send condolences to her family on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
It is incredibly disappointing to hear from the Bath Interfaith Group that the Government are removing funding for the Inter Faith Network. This comes just a few weeks after the King included “all faiths” as part of his coronation. At a time when polarisation and division are rife, we must support the Inter Faith Network to promote understanding, co-operation and good relations between all faiths. Can we have a debate in Government time on the efforts to promote interfaith relations?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks regarding our former colleague. She raises an important matter. She will know that there are several sources of support and funding from different Departments, but I will let the Cabinet Office know her concerns and ask that the appropriate Department get in touch with her office about this matter.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
Hopefully, my right hon. Friend will agree that, in seeking net zero, a considerable proportion of our energy production will have to come from nuclear power sources. On that assumption, could she induce a debate in Government time to allow Government to discuss their plans to speed up the provision of nuclear power units, be they large or small reactors, and the prospect of fission and fusion reactors throughout the whole United Kingdom?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The launch of Great British Nuclear and the competition for small modular reactors, along with pre-existing commitments to Sizewell C, for example, demonstrate our ongoing work to build the UK nuclear industry and meet those net zero objectives. We are classing nuclear energy as a green technology and including it in the UK’s green taxonomy, which is the right approach. Others who take a different approach are severely misguided.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Coventry University Nursery provides excellent early years care and education for children of university staff, students and the wider community, but the university is threatening the nursery with closure, potentially as soon as September. Not only would that be devastating for the university staff, but the lack of supply of nursery spaces means that parents will be unable to find alternative nursery provision, forcing some—disproportionately women—to leave their jobs and degrees. Parents and unions are calling on the university to reconsider its plans and work to ensure the nursery’s survival. Will the Leader of the House give Government time to discuss the importance of early years care and the value of Coventry University Nursery?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the situation in the hon. Lady’s constituency. She will know that this Government have done a great deal to support the sector and increase access to free childcare. The next questions where she can raise this matter will be on 12 June, but I think she may have secured her objective today in raising that matter on the Floor of the House, and I hope the university is listening to what she says.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
May I associate myself with everything that has been said about our former colleague, Karen Lumley? She was truly a beautiful person. I also had the privilege of seeing Tina Turner play at the Edinburgh Playhouse as part of the Private Dancer tour. Above all else, she was an incredible live performer and that is important to recognise.
The Leader will be aware that Ofgem has announced that there will be a new lower limit in relation to energy costs for households, saving them something like £426 a year from this summer. But many small businesses, such as the Pyet restaurant and bistro in West Linton in my constituency, are trapped in energy contracts where they are paying way above wholesale prices. Will she bring forward a debate in Government time on the challenges that these small businesses are facing and what can be done to help and support them?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that important point about people on fixed contracts. Other issues, such as high standing charges, will still be ongoing concerns to Members of this House, even though we have had some good news and expect that trajectory to continue. The next Question Time on this issue is not until 4 July, but he will know that the Department is running surgeries in Parliament on these matters, particularly concerning support schemes and the ongoing issues with regard to bills. He will be able to seek advice on behalf of his constituents at those surgeries, but I will also make sure that the Secretary of State has heard his comments today.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I really value the work undertaken by the National Audit Office on behalf of our Parliament. Now, despite genuine concerns of financial shenanigans on Teesside, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has stopped an NAO study into the development corporation there. People may ask, “What’s Gove got to do with it?” [Hon. Members: “Very good.”] Thank you.
The Teesside Mayor has previously called on the NAO to undertake an investigation, so to address parliamentary concerns, can we have a statement on the Government’s alternative proposal, and can any appointment include independent voices such as Amyas Morse, the former Comptroller and Auditor General at the NAO? The Government must take action to avoid accusations that concerns are being swept under the carpet—£650 million from the public purse is at stake.
Penny Mordaunt
First, on behalf of all Members, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that joke—a joke that only the Secretary of State for Levelling Up would appreciate. He will know that the Mayor of Teesside has called for an NAO-led inquiry—he has done that—and it is right that a lot of money has gone into that area. Just to briefly recap: £80 million to kick-start an investment zone; regeneration projects and levelling-up projects in Darlington, Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough; more levelling-up funding for Stockton South, Hartlepool, Redcar and Cleveland; in the Tees Valley Combined Authority, a £107 million investment, the first investment by the UK Infrastructure Bank; freeport status, a carbon capture cluster and a devolution deal; £46.3 million for the combined authority from the shared prosperity fund; millions for Middlesbrough rail station, Central Park business and lab workspace, and Teesworks gateway infrastructure; town deals for Darlington, Middlesbrough, Thornaby-on-Tees, Hartlepool and Redcar; and future high streets funding for Stockton, Loftus and Middlesbrough —all delivered by a Conservative Government and a Conservative Mayor, in contrast with what Labour did in the preceding 13 years, which was the square root of diddly squat and a disgraceful attitude in taking such communities for granted.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I send my love and best wishes to the family of our good friend Karen. She will be greatly missed.
My right hon. Friend will recall that, back in 2018, both Houses voted to decant from this place so that vital mechanical and engineering works could be carried out, yet the Public Accounts Committee has recently said that we are now spending £2 million a week on patching and mending. Does she share my concern and frustration at the lack of progress, and what more can she do to make sure that we preserve this globally important UNESCO world heritage site for future generations?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work she did to move this forward when she was in this role. She is right: we all understand that this building is not just somewhere we work, but a national heritage site and an international, world-renowned UNESCO heritage site. It must be kept safe and preserved, and on a good day with the wind behind us, it should be enhanced, too.
My right hon. Friend will know that changes have happened to the governance of the restoration and renewal programme. That is making good progress. She is absolutely right, and I know that the Commission, the Speaker, and others at the other end of this place want us to get cracking on that programme. There should be no impediment to that, and I thank all Members of this House who are on those new governance structures and are helping us get there. We hope to get there by the end of this year.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Unless fair remuneration for postmasters to deliver Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency services can be agreed by the end of June, DVLA products will be withdrawn from post office branches. This will be yet another challenge to the sustainability of our beleaguered post offices. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out her views on the importance of our post offices? Given that the DVLA is a UK Government organisation, will she use her good offices to ensure that our postmasters are fairly paid for delivering DVLA services in our communities?
Penny Mordaunt
These are important services. Although many services are moving online, it is important that they are still accessible by other means, too. I will certainly make sure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Member’s concerns today, but I also advertise that the next questions to the relevant Minister will be on 8 June.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
NAViGO, a social enterprise in my constituency providing excellent mental health services, has been refunded from the Department for the recent pay award to NHS staff, but it has not received any recompense for the one-off payment relevant to 2022-23. That anomaly clearly needs correcting. It is providing the funding from its own reserves, which is a situation that cannot continue. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the appropriate Health Minister to come and give a statement on how they will correct this anomaly?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about this difficult situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I will certainly write to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make him aware of the situation. I also suggest that my hon. Friend press the Minister on that matter on 6 June, which is in the first week back after recess.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Last week, five young people from Sudan, who are part of the All4One youth group and are seeking asylum in Manchester, wrote to the Minister for Immigration expressing worry for their families who are stuck in Sudan. They have no news about the safety or whereabouts of their loved ones and they are desperate to be reunited safely with their families. Can we urgently have a debate in Government time on the humanitarian support that the UK Government are providing in Sudan, and on what plans the Government have to open safe and legal asylum routes for those fleeing the violence in Sudan?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. Off the top of my head, Sudan is in the top 10 of nations that we take refugees from. Grant rates for asylum applications from that country range from 86% to 94%. On safe and legal routes, more than 40% of those taken in via those routes were children. We already do a huge amount, and he will know we are doing a tremendous amount in-country as well. I do not want to give the impression that we are not taking people via safe and legal routes. The facts speak for themselves. I thank this group of young individuals for raising that issue and their concerns, and I hope what I have said has put their minds at rest.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her positive remarks about the transformation that has taken place in Teesside and the Tees Valley thanks to Conservatives.
Last Saturday, I met my constituent Chloe Daley, who is 25 years old and is suffering from chronic Lyme disease caused by a suspected tick bite when she was eight years old. Chloe has faced more than 15 years of tests, treatment and misdiagnoses. She is now seeking to raise funds for further treatment that is only available in the United States. My right hon. Friend will be interested to note that, despite there being around 1,500 laboratory-confirmed cases of Lyme disease in England and Wales each year, it has not, save for one written question, been raised in this place since March 2019. Can she find time for us to have a debate on the study and treatment of Lyme disease, so that Chloe and others who suffer with the disease can have their voices heard?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I thank my hon. Friend’s constituent, Chloe, for all the work she is doing to raise awareness of this matter. I understand that the UK Health Security Agency has today published the first quarterly report of this year on common animal-associated infections, which summarises the numbers and cases of laboratory-confirmed cases of particular diseases, including Lyme disease. The UK Health Security Agency is also working on public awareness campaigns, and we are actively seeking opportunities to work with academic partners and research partners, both nationally and internationally. I think it would be an excellent topic for a debate, and he will know that the next Health questions, when he can raise this issue, is on 6 June. I thank him for his campaign.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I pass on our condolences from the DUP to the family of Karen Lumley on her death.
In October this year, according to the GB border model proposals, checks on goods from or passing through Northern Ireland will be implemented and border control posts will be set up at Cairnryan and Liverpool. This is despite the promise that there would of course be frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and GB. Traders are being kept in the dark. They do not know the nature of the checks, what paperwork will be required, whether Northern Ireland goods will be exempt and, if they are exempt, what the criteria for that exemption will be. Despite all that, no statement has been made in this House. Indeed, when I raised these issues with the Northern Ireland Minister, he did not even seem to be aware of them.
Given the appalling nature of how people are being kept in the dark about a new set of border posts within the United Kingdom, and how this will disrupt trade with Northern Ireland, can we have a debate in Government time on how the border control model is going to operate, and an explanation of why the promise of frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and GB is going to be broken?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this very important matter. This is not just about the integrity of the internal market; businesses need to understand what obligations will be placed on them by these processes and they want clarity soon. He will know that further work is ongoing on a number of fronts in the wake of the landmark Windsor framework. The next questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are not until 21 June, so I will write on the right hon. Gentleman’s behalf both to him and to the Foreign Secretary, who is heavily involved in these matters as well, to make them aware of his concerns.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
First, can I associate myself with the words about Karen? She had a huge influence on me, and actually took me to my first Conservative party conference in 1993. She will be a huge loss to us and to her family.
At a meeting with Holcroft Court residents in Fitzrovia last week, I was concerned to hear of the myriad problems they are having with their landlord, Westminster City Council, including the failure to secure an EWS1 fire safety certificate, which means they cannot sell properties and cannot remortgage. Will the Leader of the House consider asking one of her ministerial colleagues to make a statement to the House outlining how important it is to ensure that landlords, including local authorities, know the importance of, and the obligations they have on, fire safety?
Penny Mordaunt
This is obviously a critical matter and I am very sorry to hear about the circumstances in my hon. Friend’s constituency. She will know that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is very focused on ensuring that landlords deliver on their obligations to their tenants and that local authorities know what their obligations are. The next questions when she can raise this matter are on 5 June, but given its importance I will also write today on my hon. Friend’s behalf to ensure that Ministers are apprised of the situation.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
In response to the shadow Leader of the House, the Leader of the House talked about the good news that inflation is coming down, but she forgot to mention that core inflation has gone up and food inflation is running at 20%. The Chancellor said in response to the inflation figures that the Government must do more to bring food inflation down, without setting out what he or the Treasury will do. I have raised the issue of food poverty with the Leader of the House over many months. The fact is that people in my constituency are now running out of the surplus food that they purchase from food pantries, as I am sure are people in her constituency and the constituencies of every Member across the House. Can she find time for the Chancellor to make a statement on the Floor of the House to tell us what he is going to do to tackle this spiralling food inflation, where prices are out of control and my constituents cannot afford to eat?
Penny Mordaunt
This is a very important matter and although we are faring better than, for example, other EU nations, it is a concern to many Members. We have faced some pretty unique circumstances, in particular the failure of a sugar beet crop that is doubling the price of sugar. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have a cost of living package totalling £94 billion. The Chancellor is keeping the House apprised of further measures he will introduce, but as the next Treasury questions are not for a while, I will make sure that my right hon. Friend has heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments today.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am really sad about the loss of Karen Lumley; she was a dear friend who first came to Parliament, with so many of us, in 2010 —actually I am heartbroken.
Last Saturday, I was in Tiya’s Café in my constituency— I meet there every Saturday morning—and a public servant said to me, “People would be going back to work in Ministries if they had desks to go back to.” Many civil servants are not returning to their Ministries because when they get back, there are, I am told, no desks for them; they have to do their work in nearby cafés on the internet. May we have a debate on this subject?
Penny Mordaunt
It would not be appropriate to ask my officials in the box to wave and demonstrate their presence on the estate today, but I thank them. They are in every day, and I certainly think that is hugely important in building a team and ensuring people are trained: presence in the workplace matters. Each Department has its own policy on allocating desks, such as hot desks, and the attendance figures for Departments are publicly available, but I shall make sure the Cabinet Office has heard my right hon. Friend’s concerns.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I extend my condolences to the Leader of the House. Losing a friend is a very sad and difficult time, but I am sure she will, like many of her colleagues, remember the good times for Karen. I knew her briefly before she left the House in 2017.
As for Tina Turner, I attended her first farewell concert in 1990 at the Scottish exhibition and conference centre in Glasgow. She was a great campaigner for women like her who suffered profound domestic abuse, and she was a committed Buddhist and a champion of the LBGT community. She will be missed.
When Parliament debated the establishment of the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme on 20 May 2013, the Conservative peer Lord Freud told the other place:
“The issue of individuals who have developed other asbestos-related diseases through negligence or breach of statutory duty and are unable to bring a civil claim for damages of course needs to be addressed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 690.]
After 10 long years, is it not time to right the vindictive wrong by having a debate in Government time to ensure that people with other asbestos-related diseases such as certain lung cancers gain access to the right of compensation?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about Karen. The matter he raises is one for the Department for Work and Pensions. We were right to bring in the scheme and the legislation that enabled it to be stood up. The next questions to that Department are not until 19 June, so I will write to it on his behalf to raise his concerns.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Last week, during Water Saving Week, I met Mr Garry Moore, an impressive constituent who has developed a new form of toilet. By using considerably less water, Mr Moore’s new Velocity water-saving toilet has the potential to reduce household sewage by 28%. Mr Moore has applied to Ofwat for £500,000 of development funding in partnership with Thames Water and Exeter University, and he hopes to hear good news soon. Will my right hon. Friend wish Mr Moore well with his application? May we have a debate in Government time on the Government’s targets to reduce water waste and how we can encourage local innovators such as Mr Moore from Westcliff to help us meet those targets?
Penny Mordaunt
May I congratulate my hon. Friend’s entrepreneurial constituent? Who knows—the VT may take over from the WC. I wish Mr Moore well in his application. It is through such innovation that we will improve our management of water, which is a vital resource. I hope that my hon. Friend will keep us all updated on Garry Moore’s progress.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
This weekend, Stockport County are playing Carlisle at Wembley, so I wish to place on record my best wishes to the entire team.
I was recently contacted by an NHS hospital trust specialising in cancer care and treatment, which shared with me its problems in obtaining the tracer dye used in highly specialised PSMA PET-CT scans. Despite the importance of cancer scans to the delivery of high quality cancer care, when I subsequently asked the Minister for Health and Secondary Care about that in written parliamentary question 137980, he responded:
“We are not aware of any supply issues with tracer dyes used in PSMA PET scans.”
All cancer patients deserve the highest quality care. Will the Leader of the House confirm who is right: the health workers in the hospital or the Department of Health and Social Care? Will she ask the Secretary of State to correct the record and address this serious and potentially life-threatening issue?
Penny Mordaunt
Diagnostics of all descriptions are a priority for the Government, which is why we have uplifted funding and created new diagnostic centres, in part to help us crack through the covid backlog. I strongly suggest that the hon. Gentleman raises this matter with the Secretary of State at the next questions on 6 June, and asks to speak to the Minister. I am not equipped to answer his question, but the Department will be. I strongly suggest that he seeks a meeting.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s remarks about our dear friend Karen Lumley. She certainly brightened up Prime Minister’s Question Time—each week, we were not sure what colour her hair would be.
This weekend, on Sunday 28 May, Azerbaijan will celebrate independence day. Azerbaijan was created as the first secular Islamic republic at the end of the great war, after the Soviets had taken over Russia. British troops were involved in defending Azerbaijan against an invasion by the Turks at the time. Azerbaijan was the first country to enable women not only to be represented in its Parliament but to vote—way before we did. However, that did not last long, because the Soviets invaded and, indeed, until 1991 it was part of the Soviet Union. It eventually gained its independence. Will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating Azerbaijan’s independence day and in welcoming the Speaker of the Azerbaijan Parliament to this country in celebration?
While I am on my feet—I crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sure that the whole House will wish us well as the Lords and Commons cricket team embark this afternoon on our first match of the summer, taking on Harrow School in our annual fixture.
Penny Mordaunt
Good luck to the cricket team— I think they are going to need it. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Azerbaijan on the anniversary of its independence and wish those on the inward visit—the Speaker in particular, but also anyone else in the delegation —well. I thank my hon. Friend for enabling us to get that on the record.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
My constituents, like those of many Members, have been impacted by the actions of Apostle Accounting. Many owe large amounts in repayments to HM Revenue and Customs, causing undue stress and anxiety. The current interest rates mean that people, including my constituents, are left owing staggering amounts. Given the scale of the issue, will the Leader of the House make available Government time for a debate on the support that HMRC can provide to the victims of the scandal and how to prevent it from occurring again?
Penny Mordaunt
I am extremely sorry to hear about this ongoing situation and suggest that the hon. Lady raises the matter with the Business Secretary. The next oral questions are a little way off, so I shall ensure that the Department knows about her concerns and see whether it can offer some advice on how she can best support her constituents. What needs to happen with regard to that company is clear.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be well aware of Labour’s disgraceful ultra low emission zone tax raid on hard-working people in London, which will hammer businesses and people on the lowest incomes with daily charges of £12.50, or £25 for the likes of emergency workers working nights in my local hospital. Given that yesterday’s data revealed that one in two vans are still not compliant, does she agree that the Labour party is not on the side of hard-working people? Will she please advise me on how we can have another debate on the subject as more of Sadiq Khan’s claims over ULEZ go up in hot air?
Penny Mordaunt
There is immense concern about how the scheme was arrived at, how it was set up and how it is being administered, and it is causing problems not just for Londoners but for anyone who trades with London. It is clear that its primary aim is to be a tax-raising measure. The Mayor of London has often got on his soapbox and spoken of his concern about the cost of living, support for small businesses in London and so forth. One thing that he could do to alleviate considerable pressures on Londoners, and people elsewhere, is to stop taxing people for going about their daily lives.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I suspect that the Leader of the House will be aware that more than 1,200 Afghan relocations and assistance policy-entitled Afghans are stuck in limbo in hotels in Islamabad. To be clear, they are people who supported our mission in Afghanistan and whom the Government committed to relocate to the UK. Having spoken to Ministers this week, I have been assured that the Cabinet Office, the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are working to house those Afghans who are already here, but I am concerned that there does not seem to be the same level of cross-governmental work to support those stuck in Pakistan. These are people who have done the right thing and seek to use the legal routes to which they are entitled. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House used her good offices to ensure that activity is undertaken to help get these Afghans to safety.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important point. Many Members will know these individuals—they will have worked with them or met them on visits—and I know that this is a concern to many Members on both sides of the House. It is quite right that we use our finite resources in this respect for those to whom we have the most moral obligation, and these individuals are firmly in that category. I shall ensure that all three Departments have heard his remarks and will encourage them to update the House on the work that I know is ongoing.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I have been supporting hundreds of residents of Coppenhall Place who overnight found themselves living in homes without planning permission, never expecting that, between them, Countryside and Labour and independent-led Cheshire East Council would let them down so badly. I welcome Countryside’s commitment this week to cover residents’ out-of-pocket costs, but will my right hon. Friend ask for a Minister to meet me to discuss how we can get all the residents a full investigation and the full compensation package that they deserve?
Penny Mordaunt
When I hear about such situations, I wonder how in God’s name it could have happened. How on earth does a local authority enable and watch homes being built, in the full knowledge that they have not been through the systems in its planning department? This is a disgraceful situation, and the developer and the local authority need to step up and deliver on their moral obligations to the individuals who bought those homes in good faith. I suggest that my hon. Friend raises this matter at the next Levelling Up, Housing and Communities questions on 5 June. He will know that the Secretary of State takes a dim view of local authorities and planning authorities that do not adhere to their obligations to their residents.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Far from being able to afford what the Leader of the House described as a good bottle of plonk, by the end of this year another 1.3 million homeowners will be looking to renew their fixed-term mortgages, with most having to pay £200 or more extra per month. With inflation as it is, it does not bode well for interest rates. Can we have a debate in Government time on this emerging crisis and what her Government intend to do to support homeowners?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that three of the Prime Minister’s five priorities are focused on the economy and on enabling precisely the individuals he speaks about to be in a much better situation later this year. I shall certainly ensure that the Treasury has heard what he has said. He will know that the next Treasury questions are on 20 June.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
This year, the ancient and loyal borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme celebrates its 850th anniversary. It is dated to the granting of our royal charter by Henry II in 1173. Sadly, that charter has been lost in the mists of time, but undeterred we have a full year of celebrations, including, on 3 June at Brampton Museum, an unveiling of a re-creation of that charter by Mr Glenn James, a renowned local illustrator. Will the Leader of the House praise Mr James for his efforts, and the leader of the council, Councillor Simon Tagg, and our new mayor, Councillor Simon White, for the work that they have done to put the celebrations together? Does she agree that a debate in this Chamber, perhaps an Adjournment debate, would be a fitting tribute to our history and longevity?
Penny Mordaunt
It is incredibly important for our communities that we celebrate important anniversaries, and I congratulate all who are working to make Newcastle-under-Lyme’s 850th anniversary so very special. I am sure the whole House would want to congratulate Mayor White, Councillor Tagg and Mr James on the part they are playing.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
As Lord Etherton completes the LGBT veterans independent review, may I say thank you to the 1,155 veterans, serving personnel, families and professionals who returned to their darkest days and stepped forward to give evidence? For those who lived lives blighted by the historic ban on homosexuality in the armed forces, they now wait, as they have waited for decades, to hear their fate. I know the Leader of the House will fully appreciate the significance to those service personnel affected. There are rumours of a delay, so can she confirm that Lord Etherton has submitted his review and that it will be published on 8 June, not delayed, to allow for full parliamentary scrutiny?
Penny Mordaunt
I applaud the hon. Gentleman and I know that all Members of this House will want to echo the thanks he has given to those individuals for the contribution they made to that review. The next Defence questions is not until 26 June and his question is clearly time-sensitive, so I will make sure the Department has heard his remarks today and ask it to update him and the House.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The latest National Farmers Union digital technology survey shows that rural areas are lagging behind national averages on broadband and mobile connectivity, creating a barrier to growth. For example, less than half of respondents believe that their broadband speed is sufficient for the needs of their business, and 33% say that faster broadband would improve their ability to do business. From a safety perspective, only 21% of farmers report a reliable mobile signal throughout their farm. Can my right hon. Friend arrange for an urgent statement to be made to this House on progress on delivering the shared rural network and significant gigabit broadband roll-out for rural communities that we so desperately need?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend will know that this is a priority for the Government. Project Gigabit, our £5 billion mission to deliver fast reliable broadband across the UK, including rural areas, was launched in 2021. As he says, the £1 billion shared rural network deal with industry will focus on rural hotspots. He has just missed Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, which was earlier today, but the next Science, Innovation and Technology questions will be on 14 June. I encourage him to raise that matter then and I congratulate him on all the work he is doing to ensure that these services are delivered for his constituents.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May we have a debate on community safety, including the regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters? In doing so, may I express my condolences to the grieving families of Harvey Evans and Kyrees Sullivan, who died in the tragic incident in Ely in my constituency this week? May I also express solidarity with the residents who suffered the effects of the aftermath and the police officers who were injured in the ensuing disruption? May I also welcome the call from the grieving families for calm in the community to allow the independent investigation into the events that took place, so we can get to the truth of both the tragic fatalities of such young lives and the events that followed?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure the whole House would want to join the hon. Gentleman in sending our condolences and our thoughts to the Evans and Sullivan families, and praise the families and other voices in the community who have called for calm and explained the role of the police, who are doing a very valuable job for that community. I shall make sure the Department has heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns today. I am sure that if he were to apply for a debate, it would be well attended.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The running costs for the Scotland Office topped £13 million last year. Judging by its website, its main activity seems to be the production of press releases, mostly extolling the virtues of other UK Government Departments, the subject matter of which allows it to churn out press releases at a prodigious rate of almost a whole two a week. At £180,000 a pop, it must be the most expensive press office in the world. May we please have a debate, in Government time, on what exactly is the point of the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland, what the Department does all day, and why on earth it costs so much?
Penny Mordaunt
I suggest that securing record-breaking and historic levels of investment from both the public purse and the private sector should be a starter for 10 for the work the Secretary of State is doing. I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Government have spent rather a lot of money and time on preparing for independence, which was not the outcome of the referendum that was held. I also suggest that if he wants to preach prudence, he might like to talk to the SNP local authority that this week seems to have decided its main mission is not the emptying of bins or sorting out education, but actually trying to ban bouncy castles.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I recently spoke with my Action Greater Bedminster constituents about the benefits of new housing supply in south Bristol. Our Labour council is building more homes for the future, including a heat network to tackle emissions and costs, and social housing. I welcome the Backbench Business debate that the Leader of the House announced for 5 June, but people’s biggest concern in relation to building new homes is access to primary care and GP services. Before that debate, can she make sure she talks to her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to come forward with answers and a plan to make sure we build homes for the future with GP access?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady’s question has been highly efficient. She has saved me the trouble of a stamp, as the Health team are on the Front Bench. There will be two statements today on health, which she might like to attend. I hope she will be pleased with what the Secretary of State says.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Leader of the House is aware of the cuts to my local train services, which I have raised at business questions on a couple of occasions. The trains that the Government have left us with are old and cost a lot to run. Many do not have lavatories on them. They are very much in need of replacing. Can we have a debate in Government time to all raise our concerns about the condition of our rolling stock and our local rail services, and to plead for improvements and upgrades?
Penny Mordaunt
That is an important matter for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, which he will be able to raise on 8 June with the Secretary of State at the next available questions. In addition to this Government’s investment in both rolling stock and the network, in stark contrast to the Labour Government, who only managed to electrify 13 miles of track, he will know that in those franchises there have been new standards on disability access and other services on those routes. The service that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are enduring needs to improve, and I encourage him to raise that with the Secretary of State.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
My constituents have been anxiously waiting for the already significantly delayed East West Rail proposal. Both East West Rail and the rail Minister stated that the announcement would be made this month. Today is the last sitting day that a rail statement could be made, but there is no sign of it. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is outrageous that the Government are deliberately trying to slip out an important announcement about East West Rail, which will have a devastating impact on some of my constituents, just before recess to avoid scrutiny?
Penny Mordaunt
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that is the case. Neither he nor other Members of this House would be fooled by such a tactic if one were deployed. I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Transport has heard the hon. Gentleman’s questions. He will have an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State about these matters immediately following recess, but I will also raise it on his behalf.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The leading comment article in The Times this week bore the title “Whitehall Witch-hunt”. It follows a decision to no-platform the chemical weapons expert—and Liberal Democrat member—Dan Kaszeta, who is loyal to this country but not to the Conservative party. The decision to rescind Dan’s invitation to a conference at the Ministry of Defence is an attack on free speech. Will the Leader of the House ask the Cabinet Office to give a statement to the House reassuring Members that experts can continue to address civil servants, regardless of their personal politics?
Penny Mordaunt
That is a clear principle. As somebody who changed the methodology that we used at the Cabinet office in our resilience planning to make sure that we were dealing with a wider range of organisations, I appreciate why obtaining input from a large number of organisations and individuals is incredibly important to producing good policy and good outcomes for the people we are here to serve. I can give him that reassurance. He will know that he can raise specific matters with Departments in question time. The next opportunity to do so with the MOD is on 26 June.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) led a fantastic Westminster Hall debate this week on the Healthy Start scheme. It was timely, as charities are warning of parents using unsafe means to feed their babies because the cost of infant formula has increased so much. The Government committed to reach 75% of those eligible for Healthy Start, but in Wakefield just 67% receive it, meaning that hundreds of families are missing out. Can we please have a statement on how the Government will increase awareness and uptake of that vital scheme?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter. I refer him to the remarks made by the Minister who summed up the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien), who happens to be sitting on the Front Bench—business questions are very efficient today. The hon. Gentleman will know that funding has gone up since that scheme went digital. The Government are doing many other things to support people, including the early years strategy pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom).
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
This week, we saw the BBC unveil its new “Verify” unit. If only we had had such a unit in 2021 to scrutinise the disinformation we were told about the covid-19 vaccines. [Interruption.] The House might recall that we were told that the experimental treatments “will stay in your arm, not pass around your body”—completely incorrect. We were told, “These vaccines will stop you contracting and transmitting the virus”—completely wrong. Safe and effective is not ageing well. All that disinformation was spread by the BBC itself, which is now holding itself as the arbiter of truth. [Interruption.] The question is, who checks the checkers, especially when they have such a chequered history on this subject? Can we have a statement on the discussions the Government have had with the BBC on the setting up of this new unit?
Penny Mordaunt
We have all just had a very important moment. We should pause for a moment, because I think we may have just heard the first cuckoo of spring. The hon. Gentleman will forgive Members chuntering from a sedentary position when he asked his question.
The only way that Members of this House and the public can be assured of the facts and arrive at decisions themselves is by having freedom of speech to be able to say things, but also the freedom to learn things and to be uncertain about things. Part of that is ensuring that people can take information from a wide variety of sources. We have reliable and honest journalism of high standards, for which the BBC qualifies, as does the House of Commons Library. I say to all people listening to this debate that we value these things greatly. They are part of our democracy and they should provide certainty for Members in this place and the public. The hon. Gentleman might like to make use of some of those services.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) about the murky dealings at Teesworks, the Leader of the House read out a list of Government spending agreements to the north-east. I am sure that those spending agreements are welcome to those living in the north-east, but that is not the point. The point is that we need a proper investigation into what has been going on in Teesworks with public money.
Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, at column 281 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said that the Levelling Up Secretary had “already announced an investigation”. No such investigation has been announced to the House, either in a written or verbal statement. We need either a statement on the Floor of the House or a debate so that we can question any terms of reference of the investigation and what was not answered by the Prime Minister: the involvement of those hon. Members of this House who have a financial relationship with people involved with Teesworks, and whether they have influenced their decision.
Penny Mordaunt
These are important matters. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up has heard his comments. The hon. Gentleman will know that we will not have long to wait for the relevant departmental question time on 5 June, where all these matters can be raised. I am sure that once terms of reference and how such an investigation would be administered have been decided, the Department will update the House at the earliest occasion.
I was keen to get on record the investment, both public and private, into that part of our country, which has been neglected for a long time, because we need to retain business confidence. When we discuss these matters we should be led by the facts. All parties are calling for focus and scrutiny. I hope that will be delivered, and I hope that business confidence will be retained because that part of our country needs regeneration and opportunity, and that is what we are determined to deliver for it.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Can we have a debate in Government time about how MPs, in dealing with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office, are expected to support constituents in the face of obfuscation, confusion, delay and worse, including the wrong person’s passport being sent out, when all those constituents are trying to do is to get their wee baby home from Pakistan to Scotland? I am really scunnered about this. Can the right hon. Lady tell me how support can be better provided in such cases, where there is clearly additional vulnerability and real pressure on those involved? Can she suggest any additional avenues that I can pursue to help my constituents, as I have already gone down all the roads that one would expect?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady’s constituents are having difficulty in getting the relevant support. She says that she has accessed all available opportunities to assist. Has she made use of the surgeries that the Home Office provides and the consular service that the Foreign Office provides? Perhaps if she gives my office a little more detail, I shall see what the best route will be, but having dealt with officials in those Departments who are standing up those services, I know they are doing an amazing job and that they would want to help her constituents.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
The city of Manchester has a rich and vibrant history, in which those of different faiths and backgrounds have lived together, as well as stood together through difficult times and times of division, so I am concerned that Roger Waters is due to play at the AO Arena in Manchester next month. Mr Waters performed in Berlin this week and used the name of Anne Frank to stoke division, performed while dressed as an SS soldier and used the star of David on a giant pig to insinuate that Jewish people run the world, forcing the Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester to issue a statement condemning his divisive actions. Will the Leader of the House agree that such concerts have no place in our society and should not go ahead? Will she agree to a debate in Government time on the record levels of anti- Jewish hatred in this country?
Penny Mordaunt
I think the whole House was shocked by what the hon. Gentleman said. I shall make certain that the Home Office has heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. This House has made great efforts, particularly in recent years, to ensure that the scourge of antisemitism is addressed and stamped out from our country. I shall make sure that all relevant Departments have heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have the strongest legs in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Leader of House always responds well to the questions that I put to her. Earlier this year, the Ukrainian Institute for Religious Freedom reported that
“at least 494 religious buildings, theological institutions, and sacred places have been destroyed, damaged, or looted”
by the Russian military as of January 2023. Russia’s war against Ukraine continues to rage. Will the Leader of the House enable a relevant Minister to issue a statement in response to Russia’s having recently shut down an evangelical church in Ukraine: the latest incident in Moscow’s systematic campaign of religious persecution against evangelicals in occupied Ukraine?
Penny Mordaunt
Attacking places of worship and religious buildings is a war crime. Russia has a long-standing record of domestic repression of religious belief, and that has only increased since its illegal invasion of Ukraine. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have welcomed the findings of the review to take forward the recommendations made in the Truro review, and we will continue to ensure that progress is made on freedom of religious belief, which is central to our wider work on human rights.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for continuing to raise these important issues. He will know about the work of the special envoy on freedom of religion or belief and the Foreign Office, which supports her. He will be able to scrutinise that on 13 June, at Foreign Office questions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I have been very lenient in letting questions to the Lord President of the Council run, but they have been far too long. I give notice to the Chamber that I will not be so lenient in the next three statements, because we have a lot of business to transact today. I want to ensure that everybody has a chance to contribute in a timely fashion, so we will not have any statements at the beginning of questions; we will just have questions.
Anna Firth
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions on 24 May, in reference to the Government’s apprenticeship levy, the Leader of the Opposition claimed
“that almost half the levy is not being spent”.—[Official Report, 24 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 282.]
In fact, in the year 2021-22, 99.6% of the levy budget was spent in England, according to Department for Education data. I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) did not intentionally aim to mislead the House, but have you had any indication from him or his office, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he intends to come back to the House to correct the record and provide clarity to right hon. and hon. Members?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. As I am sure she appreciates, it is not a matter for the Chair. What any Member says in this Chamber is a matter for that Member. The hon. Lady has put her case very well as to why the statistics, as she interprets them, are different from the statistics as interpreted by the right hon. and learned Member to whom she refers. Did she give notice that she wished to make a point of order?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am grateful for her confirmation. It is a matter of interpretation of the statistics. They are not for me to interpret, but I am quite sure that the hon. Lady has made her point well and if there is a need for correction of the record, honourable behaviour in his House will lead that to happen.
Patient Choice
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
May I begin by joining colleagues from across the House in paying tribute to the former hon. Member for Redditch? I entered the House at the same time as her. She was a much-loved and popular colleague. I send, as I know so many do, condolences to her family and her many friends.
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement about the action the Government are taking to improve patient choice as a way to help reduce NHS waiting times, one of the Government’s five key priorities.
There are currently significant variations in waiting times across the country, and sometimes even within the same integrated care system. Analysis from the Patients Association suggests that improved patient choice can reduce waiting times by up to three months. When he took office last year, the Prime Minister promised to make it easier for patients to make a meaningful choice and to raise public awareness of the patient’s right to choose.
Because of the pandemic, we have an NHS waiting list of over 7.3 million. Of that number, around 80% are waiting for outpatient appointments and around 20% are waiting for operations. Greater patient choice will help us address this built up demand including, where appropriate, opening more routes for NHS patients to get treatment free at the point of access in the independent sector, provided it meets NHS costs and standards, because we should use all available capacity in tackling the pandemic backlogs. For example, for patients currently waiting for ear, nose and throat treatment in London, the wait could be up to four months shorter with another provider, or with trauma and orthopaedics in the north-west, choosing another provider in the same region could cut someone’s wait by three months.
Empowering patients to exercise their right to choose was one of the recommendations of the elective recovery taskforce, which identified it as a vital way of delivering the post-pandemic recovery. While we were addressing the 78-week backlog, analysis showed that 50% of those who were waiting more than 78 weeks for elective care were in just 11 trusts, which reinforced the opportunity offered by raising awareness of patient choice and making it easier for patients to exercise that choice in a meaningful way.
As well as cutting waiting lists, choice empowers patients to decide which aspects of the hospital service matter most to them. Patients themselves can prioritise the speed of care, alongside other factors such as distance travelled and the Care Quality Commission rating of the provider, or they may have had previous care from a consultant-led team and want to return to that team. We believe that empowering the patient is an intrinsically good thing, and we also believe that it cannot be the preserve of the groups with the sharpest elbows; it must be open to all. Research from the King’s Fund has found that
“older respondents, those with no qualifications, and those from a mixed and non-white background were more likely to value choice.”
When we combine improved patient choice with better real-time data and greater transparency, we can drive up standards. When patients know much more about how their local hospital is performing, the pressure is on poor performers to close the gap with their near neighbours, where patients are often being treated more quickly.
The case for patient choice is clear, so with the aim of improving it, we are announcing significant changes in a number of areas. The first is technology. More than 30 million people have now signed up for the NHS App, and our target is for three quarters of all adults in England to be registered by next March. The app is already giving patients an improved “front door” for NHS services, and we are continuing to build on that. When GPs make a referral, they will make a shortlist of the five most suitable providers, and patients will be able to choose from the shortlist on the app. In March we completed the work of supplying a single list of providers for these shortlists, irrespective of whether the services are commissioned locally or nationally. While the Opposition’s plan to organise waiting lists on a regional basis might look like a good idea on paper, in reality it would add an extra layer of bureaucracy, whereas national lists under this Conservative Government will empower patients to choose treatment wherever they like. For example, a patient registered in Sheffield might happily choose to receive treatment in Manchester, particularly if family members there could help with the patient’s care and recovery.
The second area of work is improving the experience of those who are already on waiting lists, so that they can obtain treatment more quickly. From October this year, patients who have waited more than 40 weeks for an appointment, or who have a decision to treat but do not have a treatment date, will be able to request a transfer to another provider with a shorter waiting list. It is our ambition to expand that offer to other groups of long waiters, progressively lowering the waiting time towards 18 weeks as fast as is clinically possible.
Our third focus is on communications. We want to increase public awareness of today’s announcement through a national campaign, with the particular aim of reaching the groups who are most likely to benefit from greater choice as well as those least likely to exercise it. We will also ensure that general practitioners, and others who refer patients for consultant-led care, are offering more patient choice and are supported with the right training and technology.
Fourthly, we will focus on transparency. Real-time information on performance will be made more transparent to patients so that they can gain a clearer understanding of the variations from place to place, which will help them to exercise informed choice. We have worked to make ratings by the Care Quality Commission available and accessible to all, and we are merging the “My Planned Care” platform with the NHS website.
The Labour party has been busy announcing initiatives that we already have under way, such as expanding the NHS App, embracing virtual wards and stopping kids from vaping, but while its members have been busy talking in England and failing to act on behalf of patients in Wales, we have been busy acting to empower patients, and today’s announcement is another example of that. We are committed to cutting NHS waiting lists, and the measures that we have announced will help us to do that—by empowering patients to gain access to faster treatment in hospitals with available capacity; by giving patients technology enabling them to exercise their right to choose, and giving them the information that will help them to make that choice; by increasing communication to raise public awareness of the right to choose; and by fostering much greater transparency and, through funding, following the patient, to encourage trusts to improve their offer to patients to better match the service offered in hospitals elsewhere.
Taken together, those measures will enable patients to access treatment more quickly and meet the Government’s priority of reducing NHS waiting lists. I commend this statement to the House.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I also join him in paying tribute to the late Karen Lumley and, even more important, extending condolences to her family and her many friends on both sides of the House —but particularly on the Conservative Benches—for their loss. I know that the sadness is felt very deeply throughout the Chamber.
Let me now turn to the first of today’s two statements from the Health Secretary. It seems that quantity is not matched by quality. In a week in which the Leader of the Opposition announced Labour’s plans to give patients more choice, with regional waiting lists for care and more power through the NHS App, the Conservatives’ big idea to cut waiting times is to give patients a choice that they already have. It is thanks to the last Labour Government that patients waiting for planned treatment already have a right to choose an alternative provider if they have been waiting too long.
Beneath the spin, the Health Secretary’s announcement is actually a watering down of the measures that are already in place. He says that patients will have the right to choose an alternative provider if they have been waiting longer than 40 weeks, but in 2019 the Conservatives said that they should have that right after 26 weeks—which, even then, was worse than the 18-week standard to which patients were already entitled thanks to the last Labour Government. Is it not the case that he is once again shifting the goalposts because he cannot even meet his own standards, let alone those that patients expect?
The Health Secretary concluded his statement by talking about his Government’s record. That was a bold move, because 7.3 million people— the highest number on record—are currently waiting for planned treatment in England. As usual, the Health Secretary said that that was because of the pandemic, but the figure was already at a record high before the pandemic. Behind this shocking statistic are real people, waiting, waiting, waiting in agony. It does not matter how often the Health Secretary says that the Government are committed to reducing the waiting lists; people can see with their own eyes the numbers that do not lie, which show that waiting lists are getting higher and things are getting worse, not better.
The Health Secretary’s total incompetence when it comes to preventing strike action in the NHS has inflicted untold misery on patients. So far the total number of appointments affected by NHS strikes in recent months is more than half a million, a figure that the Health Secretary called “deeply disappointing”. Well, that is something on which he and I can agree, for once, but with another round of strike action planned by junior doctors, he must surely see the risk to patient choice and waiting lists. What is his plan? Ministers blame strikes as if they were mere bystanders, but it was their refusal to speak to nurses, paramedics and junior doctors that forced them out on strike in the first place. I am afraid the Health Secretary’s warm words today are not going to cut it, when all he is doing is giving more patients more choice over where their next appointment or operation is to be cancelled because of the strikes that he and the Prime Minister have failed to prevent.
Finally, let me turn to the supermassive black hole that is at the heart of today’s announcement. I will keep on reminding the Health Secretary of this until the penny drops. It does not matter which hospital patients choose; they can only receive care on time if there are enough staff to treat them—so why are we still waiting for the NHS workforce plan that the system is crying out for? Why do we have net migration at the highest level ever, with the Government over-reliant on recruiting staff from overseas because they cannot be bothered to train home-grown talent? Where is the plan to train the doctors and nurses whom the NHS is so desperately short of? Labour has set out our plan to double medical school places and train 7,500 more doctors and 10,000 more nurses a year, which we would pay for by abolishing non-dom tax status. [Interruption.] I am afraid that Conservative Members like non-doms more than they like nurses, but the public are not with them on that. Let me once again, in the spirit of generosity, before we break for the recess, offer the Secretary of State our fully costed, fully funded plan. It is available to him—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should not laugh too much now. I wager that, before we break for the summer, the Government will finally swallow their pride and announce the doubling of medical school places. We will wait and see.
After 13 years of Conservative Government, people can see for themselves where it has landed this country and compare it with 13 years of Labour Government, which delivered the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history. We will offer real choice and cut waiting times, so that the NHS is there when people need it. We did it before; we will do it again. We have the ideas and we have the plan. That is why only Labour can build an NHS that is fit for the future.
Steve Barclay
Not since the famous 1p on income tax from the Lib Dems, which was to be spent on every issue going past like a passing bus, have we heard of money being spent in as many different ways as the non-dom money. No wonder the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said it with a smile; the whole House could see how credible that proposal is.
The theme of the hon. Gentleman’s response was comparison, so I think we should compare the substance of the announcement on patient choice with the situation where Labour is in office. In Wales, patients do not have the ability to choose where they receive treatment; that right is not offered to patients. In NHS Wales, patients registered with a GP in Wales do not have a statutory right to choose at which hospital they receive treatment. We can compare what a Government in England are doing—empowering patients, giving them that choice as well as the information and technology they need to make it—with NHS Wales, run by the Labour party, which deprives patients of their choice.
I hesitate to draw the comparison with Wales, however, because another Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), says that he does not want Labour to be judged on its record in Wales. That is slightly confusing because the leader of the Labour party, no less, says that he wants Labour in Wales to be
“a blueprint for what Labour can do across the UK”.
So they cannot even compare among themselves, never mind compare between England and Wales.
The hon. Member for Ilford North talked about strike action but seemed to skirt around the fact that the Government have reached a deal with the NHS Staff Council in relation to Agenda for Change staff—a deal that his own union, Unison, voted 74% in favour of. His own union—the union that gives him money—supported the deal. He chides us about junior doctors, but those of us who were present in the Chamber the last time heard him say that he did not support the junior doctors’ demand for 35%. When we did negotiate with them, they even increased their demand to 49%, when next year is added in, further confusing the position.
It will come as no surprise to the House to discover that people in Wales are almost twice as likely to be waiting for treatment as people in England. That is the true comparison that we are addressing. We can see that situation play through to people waiting more than 18 months. In England, we have virtually eliminated 78-week waits—at the end of March, it was under 11,000—but in Wales, it will come as no surprise to Members, the number was closer to 75,000, and of course Wales has a smaller population. So we can compare waiting times, which we in England are bringing down. We have an electives plan, we cleared virtually all the two-year waits in the summer and over 90% of the 18-month waits at the end of March, which contrasts with the situation in Wales. We are giving patients choice, enabling them to move if they want to in order to get quicker treatment elsewhere. We are on the side of patients. We can see what the Labour party is doing by its disastrous performance in Wales.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
This form of patient choice has of course been available for at least 15 years; it just has not been made available to patients. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the referral management centres sitting at integrated care board level will be compelled, not asked, either to change that or to get out of the way altogether? Given that the vast majority of people on the waiting lists are already there with a specific trust, how exactly will they be given the option either to stick where they are, or to twist and exercise that choice to receive treatment sooner?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a shrewd point. Yes, the referral centres are part of this system. The key focus is on the initial GP referral and how we facilitate that with better data, transparency and tech, but the referral centres are a part of this. We want to roll it out to the 40-week waits from October, and to bring waits down to 18 weeks. There is a clear plan to achieve that wider scope, and that is what I have set out to the House today.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Karen Lumley was indeed a wonderful woman. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family at this difficult time.
The statement is admirable, but how will patients have a choice if the Secretary of State does not address the workforce issue? When will he do that? When will he speak to the junior doctors?
Steve Barclay
As I touched on in my statement, the choice is there now; it is available right now, but only about 10% of patients exercise it. There is massive variation in the system now, with the existing workforce. We are increasing the workforce. We have made a commitment to produce a workforce plan, but the point is that there is variation within the system now. What patient choice is about is empowering patients to take advantage of it and to access treatment sooner, for example, by being willing to travel often short distances to access it.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I really do welcome the revolution in patient choice that my right hon. Friend has outlined, but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on minimally invasive cancer therapies, it is clear to me that some cutting-edge technologies and treatments are available only in certain trusts under certain consultants. Can he confirm that, within the choice available to them, patients will be able to choose centres that provide unique treatments, rather than the universal treatments that are available everywhere?
Steve Barclay
Yes, I can. Part of this is allowing patients to choose according to a number of factors. Some may have had treatment previously and want to go back to a particular consultant-led team. Some may want to look at CQC ratings and other performance metrics. Some may want the convenience of not travelling—relatively small numbers say they are not willing to travel; far more are willing to do so. Patients will look at a range of factors when shaping their decision. The key is to have transparency and the technology that enables patients to take control.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Of course we all want to see real patient choice, but for millions of people who are waiting in pain, a choice between travelling miles away or paying to go private is no choice at all. We all know that the key to unlocking millions of people from the NHS backlog is tackling the crisis in the workforce. Why on earth are we spending precious parliamentary time talking about the NHS app instead of the NHS workforce?
Steve Barclay
We are talking about the wider workforce. The hon. Lady mentions private capacity. This patient choice will enable people to make much better use of the independent sector and to do so free at the point of access. Given the size of the challenge of pandemic backlogs, the question is: how can we make full use of capacity across the NHS and in the independent sector?
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
The problem of variation in waiting times is symbolic of all sorts of variations across the NHS. My previous employer, the national clinic audit programme commissioner, focused on identifying and spreading good practice. Will the Minister join me to meet the programme’s CEO, Jane Ingham, to hear her insights on how to tackle this challenge, and also join me in paying tribute to her as she retires after 10 years of dedicated public service in this role?
Steve Barclay
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Jane Ingham, who, as he says, is retiring after 10 years in that post. She has a long history of working to improve the quality of healthcare in the NHS and it is right that we pay tribute to her. I am sure the ministerial team are keen to engage with her on lessons to be learnt from her career.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s words on patient choice will ring hollow until he addresses the NHS workforce crisis. In ophthalmology, 80% of eye units do not have enough consultants to meet current demand, and 65% of eye units had to rely on locums last year. Labour has a fully funded plan for the biggest workforce expansion in NHS history. Where is his plan? He has not answered previous questions. Can he say whether this workforce plan will actually address the deficit in eye health and ophthalmology?
Steve Barclay
As the record shows, numbers have been increasing. There are 37,000 more doctors and 52,000 more nurses within primary care than in 2010. We have already reached our manifesto commitment on additional roles in primary care to deliver more appointments. We have repeatedly said that we will bring forward a workforce plan and we are committed to doing so shortly.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on promoting more choice than in the socialist republic of Wales, which is a pretty low bar, but can we go further and promote real choice by adopting two previous Conservative policies? Both would be wildly popular. The first is a patient passport, by which a patient could get a free operation on the NHS, or take the same cost to a private or charitable hospital, which would promote choice and accountability. The second is tax relief for private health insurance, which is a matter for the Chancellor, but the Secretary of State could have a quiet word with him.
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend has lobbied me on this issue a number of times, including outside the Chamber. As such a senior parliamentarian, he well knows that tax is a matter for the Chancellor, who I am sure will have noted his wider point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his very positive statement. He referred to long waiters, the second area of work. One oft-neglected area is access to specialist in-patient services for eating disorders. My constituents in Northern Ireland do not have access to a clinic to allow them a choice between a weekly weigh-in with their GP and specialised treatment. What discussions, and practical and physical assistance, can he offer the Department of Health at the Northern Ireland Assembly to help people with eating disorders?
Steve Barclay
As so often, the hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point about how we tackle the serious issue of eating disorders. As he knows, we are increasing our funding for mental health. It is a key priority in the long-term plan, which is providing an extra £2.3 billion a year. On different approaches, we are looking much more actively at our use of digital apps and platforms, which is an area that the Chancellor specifically funded in the last Budget. We are also looking at how we address mental health issues earlier, particularly for children. We are rolling out mental health support teams in schools because, obviously, early intervention has significant benefits and targeting schools is a great way to do that.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on a profoundly Conservative step forward in dealing with the waiting list issue. Does he agree that the provision of greater patient choice holds out the possibility of stimulating more investment in private sector capacity, particularly for volume procedures such as hips and knees? However, the private sector, to make such heavy investments in facilities, requires long-range certainty. As waiting lists fall, will he review the threshold—the time limit—at which patients can seek private sector assistance in getting their operation done more swiftly, so that the efficiencies of the private sector can be realised for the system as a whole in the longer term?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend raises a very good point. As he knows, there is interaction between what is and is not on the balance sheet. His point particularly relates to the roll-out of diagnostic centres. I have looked at the facility in Blackpool that is using artificial intelligence in endoscopy and picking up 20% more cases than would be seen with the human eye. We are thinking about how we use the private sector to add more capacity at scale and pace, and how it can use the latest technology. Obviously, we need to do that in a way that is compliant with Treasury rules. Ensuring there is greater capacity in the system—but doing so where it is free at the point of access to NHS patients—is an area where we have already done quite a lot. However, there is always scope to look at it afresh.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the statement, which will undoubtedly help waiting lists in my Keighley and Ilkley constituency. Can he confirm that this expansion will be available first to those who have been waiting longest?
Steve Barclay
I can confirm that, from October, we will roll this out to those who have been waiting more than 40 weeks, and we will look to bring down that threshold over time. We will focus first on the longest waits.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I share my right hon. Friend’s desire to increase patient choice and reduce waiting times. One way to do that in south-east London is to expand further the number of services at Queen Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup, which is an excellent modern hospital with the capacity to expand services. However, there needs to be a will within NHS leadership, especially within the new integrated care boards, to get on with doing so, particularly for community diagnostics. Will my right hon. Friend please agree to meet me to discuss further how we can improve patient choice and patient outcomes in Bexley?
Steve Barclay
I share my hon. Friend’s desire. As part of this announcement, payment will follow patients to incentivise trusts to take on more, which further underpins patient choice. We are actively engaged on accelerating the diagnostic centres and, as a result of ministerial intervention, we have speeded up the diagnostic centre programme. I look forward to updating the House on how many additional scans and tests will now be done this year, as opposed to the original plan for those tests to be done in 2024. I am very happy to have further discussion with him.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I normally allow a bit of movement between statements, but it seems that a change of scene and personnel is not necessary as everyone is already in place.
New Hospitals
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
It is like a two-for-one offer.
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the new hospital programme.
As we celebrate 75 years of the NHS this summer, we must continue to set up its success for the 75 years to come. At the heart of this is our new hospital programme, the biggest hospital building programme in a generation, which will help us to deliver on our manifesto commitment to build 40 new hospitals by 2030. Today, I reconfirm to the House our commitment for 40 new hospitals to be built by 2030.
We made our manifesto commitment in 2019, and in 2020 we listed 40 schemes as part of the new hospital programme. Since we formally launched the schemes, we have learned more about the use of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, more commonly known as RAAC. RAAC is a lightweight form of concrete that, between the mid-1950s and the mid-1980s, was commonly used in the construction of a number of public buildings, including hospitals—often on roofs and occasionally in walls and floors.
We now know that RAAC has a limited lifespan, with difficult and dangerous consequences for the people who rely on or work in those hospitals. I know this has caused considerable concern to colleagues in this House, to NHS staff in those hospitals and to constituents who are treated in them.
We remain committed to eradicating RAAC from the wider NHS estate. As part of the spending review allocation up to 2024-25, we allocated £685 million in immediate support to the affected trusts, but in some cases we must go much further. Seven hospitals in England were constructed, either wholly or in major part, with RAAC, and an independent assessment shows they are not safe to operate beyond 2030. Two of the hospitals are already part of the new hospital programme, namely the West Suffolk Hospital and James Paget University Hospital. The five remaining hospitals have submitted expressions of interest to join the programme but are not yet part of it. Those are Airedale General Hospital in Keighley, Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, Hinchingbrooke Hospital near Huntingdon, Mid Cheshire’s Leighton Hospital, and Frimley Park Hospital in Surrey.
We accept in full the independent assessment that these hospitals are not safe to operate beyond 2030. Today, I confirm to the House that we will expand our new hospital programme to include those five further hospitals built with significant amounts of RAAC. With the two RAAC hospitals already in the programme, the seven RAAC hospitals will be rebuilt completely using a standardised design known as Hospital 2.0, with the aim of completing all seven by 2030. I can confirm to the House today that these new hospitals will be fully funded.
I want to take a moment to thank all those who have campaigned so tirelessly for new hospitals to be built to replace the existing RAAC hospitals, including my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), who have championed Airedale vociferously; my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who has campaigned so strongly for Frimley; my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who lobbied hard for Hinchingbrooke; my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who led the campaign on Leighton Hospital; and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who is my Parliamentary Private Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who all campaigned so assiduously for the hospital in King’s Lynn.
Taken together, the new hospital programme represents a huge commitment to strengthening the NHS estate. Since 2020, we have committed to invest £3.7 billion by the financial year 2024-25, and we expect the total investment to now be more than £20 billion for the programme as a whole. Resolving the uncertainty over the RAAC hospitals, which today’s announcement achieves, in turn allows much-needed clarity for the rest of the new hospital programme. The programme has been divided into cohorts 1 to 4, and construction in cohort 1 has already started. Cohort 1 contains eight schemes. Two hospitals are already open to patients, with the new Louisa Martindale Building at the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton due to open later this year. Work at Moorfields Eye Hospital is due to start imminently, having cleared its final business case.
Cohort 2 comprises 10 schemes. The following schemes will now be ready to proceed, in line with plans set out by the respective trusts: the National Rehabilitation Centre; Derriford emergency care hospital in Plymouth; Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital; Dorset County Hospital in Dorchester; and St Ann’s Hospital, Christchurch Hospital, the Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Poole Hospital, all of which are in Dorset. A further two schemes within cohort 2, Shotley Bridge Community Hospital and the women and children’s hospital in Cornwall, will also be approved to proceed, but in line with the standardised design elements we are promoting through Hospital 2.0, on which I will set out further details in a moment. As such, with the uncertainty that surrounded the RAAC hospitals now addressed, all the cohort 2 schemes can proceed, and they will be fully funded.
The cohort 3 schemes include major hospital new builds at Sutton, Whipps Cross, Hillingdon, Watford, Harlow, Leeds and Leicester. Today’s announcement confirms that those schemes will now proceed and be fully funded. They will be constructed using the Hospital 2.0 standardised approach. It is worth reminding the House of the merits of using that methodology. First, although longer will be taken on the initial design, the current approach of each scheme constructing its own bespoke design has meant that the average time from design to completion of a major hospital has been about 11 and a half years. By embracing modern methods of construction, we will massively speed up the construction phase and, in addition, accelerate Treasury and other government assurance processes. There has been much debate to date on when hospitals start, but the more important issue is when schemes are completed. A standardised modular design has been shown to work in other sectors—for example, when building schools and prisons—and is widespread across the private sector.
Today’s announcement confirms that all cohort 3 schemes can now proceed. In turn, enabling works that had been held up due to the uncertainty about the RAAC hospitals can now progress. I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members who have campaigned strongly for the cohort 3 hospitals to proceed. They include my right hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing), and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). I know that not all of them can raise points during this statement, but the latter three have all championed Harlow and its case. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), to name just some of those who have raised these issues. [Interruption.]
Steve Barclay
Opposition Members have asked for the update and called for the programme, but they do not want to hear about it when the announcement is being made.
Turning to the hospitals in cohort 4, two of the schemes —West Suffolk Hospital and James Paget University Hospital—are RAAC hospitals. As I touched on a moment ago, they have been confirmed as part of the seven RAAC schemes. They will therefore be funded for completion by 2030. Four more hospitals in cohort 4 remain on track for completion by 2030: Milton Keynes University Hospital, Kettering General Hospital, Musgrove Park Hospital in Taunton and Torbay Hospital. Again, I pay tribute to the Members for those constituencies, including my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster).
The remaining seven hospitals within that cohort will also proceed as part of the new hospital programme. The work will start on those schemes over the next two years, but they will be part of a rolling programme where not all work will be completed by 2030. That is a reflection of the disruption that two years of the covid pandemic caused, as well as the pressure from construction inflation.
Some work within cohort 4 will start next year. That includes a new surgical hub at Eastbourne, alongside the discharge lounge already under construction. We will discuss key worker accommodation on the site with the trust, as part of engagement with the local housing association. At Charing Cross Hospital in Hammersmith, work will begin on temporary ward capacity to enable the floor-by-floor refurbishment to proceed. In Nottingham, work will begin on a new surgical hub and three new operating theatres will begin as part of the wider redesign, taking forward the Ockenden report recommendations. In Lancashire, a new surgical hub will be opened at the Royal Preston Hospital, which is due to be completed this year. We will reconfigure services across two trusts. I am sure that one of those sites will be of interest to Mr Speaker, as it is expected to be near Chorley. We are in active discussion with the Royal Berkshire Hospital, given the problems with the existing site, which had already made a 2030 completion date very stretching. In addition, we are building three new mental health hospitals in the Surrey and Borders, Derbyshire and Mersey Care areas.
Turning to Devon, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), who have secured new community diagnostics centres at North Devon. The discharge hub there is near completion, and we will take forward discussions with the trust and the local housing association on key worker accommodation over the next two years, as the first part of the North Devon new hospital build. We will discuss the original refurbishment proposal alongside the new build Hospital 2.0 option.
In summary, the cohort schemes will all proceed, but the commitment to completion by 2030 applies to the 40 schemes set out today, which meets our manifesto commitment to build 40 hospitals by 2030.
Finally, let me set out the merits of the Hospital 2.0 approach. Building new hospitals in this way has clear advantages. Construction experts estimate that with modular design, the efficiency saving will be in the region of 25% per square foot. That is essential in addressing the pressure of construction inflation and unlocking the additional schemes that are being absorbed as a result of the RAAC announcement.
There is one key risk to today’s announcement: the plan announced by the Labour party. As we speed things up, it is determined to grind them to a halt. The plan Labour set out on Monday said:
“as a first step, before we commit to any more money, we’d make an assessment of all NHS capital projects to make sure money is getting allocated efficiently”.
So the risk to these schemes is from those on the Benches opposite.
Today’s announcement confirms more than £20 billion of investment for the NHS estate. It confirms that all seven RAAC hospitals, which NHS leaders have called on the Government to prioritise, will be prioritised, with complete rebuilds using modern methods of construction. It allows all cohort 2 schemes to proceed once business cases have been agreed, and modular build will be used for two of those schemes. It gives trusts the certainty to begin enabling works on major schemes in cohort 3 and a package of early work for schemes in cohort 4, two of which will be accelerated as part of the RAAC programme.
In 2019 we committed to the biggest hospital building programme in a generation, and today we confirm the funding to build 40 hospitals by 2030. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Normally, I would thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but by the time it arrived we were already in the Chamber. But it is all right; we will manage. I just thought, “What an astonishing coincidence that so many Conservative Members, whom the Secretary of State name-checked, happened to find their way to the Chamber at precisely the right moment.” It is almost as if they knew in advance. But no, I shall just assume that they sped to the Chamber faster than the Home Secretary down the motorway. I think we can assume that, with today’s migration figures, the Government have concluded that today is a good day to bury bad news. I will come on to respond to the statement, but I just wonder whether, at this stage in the lifecycle of 13 years of Conservative Government, the public might have just begun to see through the over-promising and under-delivering.
The NHS estate is crumbling after 13 years of Conservative neglect. Across England, backlog maintenance costs have more than doubled, from £4.7 billion in 2011-12 to £10.2 billion in 2021-22, and we see the consequences of that. Leeds Teaching Hospital saw more than 100 raw sewage leaks last year. Let us not beat about the bush, we are talking about urine and faeces leaking into wards and patient rooms. Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was forced to suspend some services because of an uncontrollable rat infestation. One of the Health Secretary’s own local hospitals in King’s Lynn has earned itself a special accolade—the most propped hospital in the country. More than 4,000 steel and timber support props are supporting its dilapidated roof—enough to extend for six miles. We have leaking sewage, rat infestations and collapsing roofs. We are in this mess because of Conservative neglect and mismanagement. They literally did not fix the roof while the sun was shining and now patient safety is at risk. Indeed, on the RAAC hospitals in particular, the Secretary of State said in his statement:
“An independent assessment shows they are not safe to operate beyond 2030.”
Indeed, what a relief to those communities that, finally, the Secretary of State has come forward to confirm that they will at least be built. I hope that will be done at speed so that we can make sure that at least one group of hospitals is built by 2030.
Turning to his wider promise, I genuinely expected that the Secretary of State might come to the House today and be upfront about the fact that, whatever promises the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), made in 2019, the pledge to build 40 new hospitals by 2030 will simply not happen. It was a straightforward commitment—40 new hospitals—but since it was made we have become familiar with the idea that they were not new and, astonishingly, they were not even new hospitals. In fact, since that general election we have had more new Health Secretaries than we have had new hospitals. Indeed, we have a case in point—like the new hospitals, some of them are not even new.
In August 2021 we discovered the Government’s definition of a “new” hospital when a departmental memo on key media lines to use when talking about the programme advised that fix-ups and paint jobs should be included. Then in November of that same year, the Government’s own infrastructure watchdog called the programme “unachievable.” So what has changed? In February this year it was revealed that only 10 of the projects even had planning permission. Just last week the BBC reported that the building work is yet to start on 33 of the 40 projects promised. In fact, most are still waiting to hear what their final budget will be, and none of the six that were supposed to be ready for 2025 has full planning permission or funding yet.
This matters, because people in those places were made a promise. The Secretary of State has the audacity to repeat that promise today when—even if the will is there and, as he says, the money is there—it is hard to see or understand how, practically, he will be able to deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030. Will he now come clean and admit that this is just another example of the Conservatives over-promising and under-delivering? The fact is that, thanks to the dither and delay and the churn of personnel from one Health Secretary to another and one Prime Minister to another, the programme has been hit with delays and uncertainty for years. As a result, the costs have soared, and it is less likely that the hospitals will ever be built, letting down taxpayers and letting down patients.
The Secretary of State has also tried to instil this sense of jeopardy that, if there were a change of Government and they were a Labour Government, hospital building would somehow become less likely. He quoted the Leader of the Opposition accurately, but he did not seem to understand the meaning. It is quite right to say that, before we commit any more money to capital projects, we will want to make sure that these projects are feasible, are good value for money and will deliver the improvement that patients need.
However, if I have understood the Secretary of State’s statement correctly, the hospitals that he has announced are all fully funded. I cannot wait to see the detail behind “fully funded”, but surely if we are accepting him at face value and these are fully funded, there will not be the need for any more money from a Labour Government to fund these 40 new hospitals. Therefore, there is no risk or jeopardy at all, assuming that the money is there and the case stacks up. That is why we requested a National Audit Office investigation into the programme and why we will set up an office of value for money to make sure that we get value for every penny of taxpayers’ money spent.
The Conservatives have dithered so much that it has been reported that the programme is now expected to cost twice as much as originally estimated—an eye-watering £35 billion. Does the Health Secretary recognise that figure? If he does not, will he commit to publishing the latest estimate that his Department has made of the true cost of the programme? If it is fully funded, can he explain exactly where that money has come from?
This is not just about cost, but about the very real threat to patient safety, which this irresponsible Government are presiding over day in, day out. In December, the Health Secretary acknowledged the enormous concerns about reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete used in certain hospitals, and the safety implications of this. He committed to eradicating it from the NHS estate. Why has it taken him six months to get to this point? I wonder how many of the new hospitals have been kicked into the long grass, beyond 2030, as a result of the decision that his Department has made today.
In conclusion, is it not time for the Health Secretary to come clean with the House and with the public and admit that the only place that these 40 “new” hospitals will exist by 2030 is in the former Prime Minister’s imagination? In fact, what we have heard today is a plan on paper, but it is one that will never see reality in practice.
Steve Barclay
It is a very strange approach to complain about Members coming to the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman almost sinks his own point with his opening gambit. We are here because of the campaigning of Conservative Members for new hospitals. That is why, when they see that there is a statement on new hospitals as part of that campaign, it is no surprise that they are in the Chamber. It is pretty odd to complain about Members coming to the Chamber because they are interested in what is happening in their own constituencies.
It is equally strange for the Opposition to appear to be complaining about a plan that they have been calling for over recent weeks. The shadow Secretary of State has repeatedly said that he wants to see the new hospitals programme plan. We have set that out in the statement today, to which he says he is concerned that we only have a plan. A plan on the Government side beats no plan on the Opposition side.
The hon. Gentleman also seems, slightly oddly, not to welcome a commitment to over £20 billion of investment in the NHS estate. He seems to have an objection to me giving a commitment to address the issues of RAAC hospitals, which NHS leaders themselves have said should be prioritised and which independent reports have said create a risk beyond 2030, and coming to the Chamber after discussions with Treasury colleagues and others across Government to confirm that we now have funding to address the seven RAAC hospitals that he has called for action on.
The shadow Secretary of State then seems to have an objection about speed, yet the whole thrust of my statement was about how we are changing our methodology through the use of modern methods of construction, learning from what has been done in the education sector, the justice sector and the private sector about delivering construction schemes at pace. That gives more confidence on cost; it stops local chief executives changing the specifications once designs are under way; it allows things to be built more quickly; it allows us to benefit from technology, with construction in factories as opposed to more conventional construction; and it allows us to deliver schemes more quickly.
It is for that reason that Conservative Members campaigned so strongly for it, none more so than my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who has been an assiduous champion of the case for Airedale General Hospital. As the statement sets out, we are committed to addressing the RAAC hospitals, and fixing them has in turn unblocked something that was causing delay to the programme for the enabling works for cohort 3, in particular.
Cohort 2, where schemes are well advanced, will also now be able to proceed. We also updated the House on the more bespoke approach being taken to some of cohort 4. The shadow Secretary of State is right to talk about a sense of jeopardy, because those on the Opposition Front Bench have said they want to pause, review and stop the schemes we will be proceeding with. That is the real risk to the new hospitals programme. We have a new approach. We have a clear plan. It is the Labour party that wants to stop it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I am grateful for the statement; the Select Committee will want to have a good look at it, and we will start when the Secretary of State comes to see us next month. At the last election, I promised my constituents significant investment in Winchester Hospital. That is already happening, and now with early work in cohort 4 we have the promise of the elective hub to scale the orthopaedic list. Can the Secretary of State be clear with my constituents that, as the new Hampshire hospital comes together as part of the wider cohort 4, it will be for clinicians to make the clinical case on what safe and sustainable services look like in the long term for those people?
Steve Barclay
There are different issues around construction and service design. In terms of service design, there will need to be discussions with local clinicians and others. As my hon. Friend knows, with his scheme in North and Mid Hampshire, there are issues around the new site for junction 7 of the M3, where there is significant work on potential land acquisition and what upgrading of the motorway would be required. There is a question about the size of the hospital versus other services offered locally. Those are the issues we are keen to get in discussion with the North and Mid Hampshire trusts on, and that will be part of the rolling programme we take forward.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On the Leeds project, I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State, but can I press him on the detail? How much money is going to be allocated to the Leeds project? Will the standardised approach that he has talked about have any flexibility within it, given the particular characteristics of the Leeds site, which he knows about, and the fact that, as he is also aware, it is cleared and ready to go?
Steve Barclay
For reasons of commercial confidentiality, which I am sure the House will recognise, it would be unwise to say what each scheme is allocated—that would be most interesting to the developers bidding for that work. That is why we will not set out individual allocations. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have been to see Leeds and I recognise the importance of the work there. On the modular design 2.0, I pay tribute to the work that Lord Markham has done; he brings real commercial experience into the use of modular methods of construction. Those schemes are designed to have some flex. I sat for four years on the Public Accounts Committee, and one of the recurring themes during my time there was costs increasing because specifications were changed mid-build. One of the advantages of the modular method of construction is that, by putting all the advice into the design at the front end, we can standardise design, have the benefits of scale and maximise the “national” in National Health Service, rather than having individual schemes, all of them at risk of specifications changing and costs inflating.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary for listening to our representations in west Norfolk and announcing a new build for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn. As he knows, the hospital is in a poor state. Parts of it are being held up by stilts and the concrete is crumbling. This announcement will come as a huge relief to local residents and will be extremely welcome. Can he confirm that the new hospital will open its doors by 2030?
Steve Barclay
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue, together with other Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who have also led that campaign. I can confirm that the new hospital will open by 2030. We accept in full the findings of the independent report. That is why the seven RAAC hospitals are being prioritised and why today’s announcement is such great news for staff and patients in King’s Lynn.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Imperial College Healthcare NHS trust, including St Mary’s Hospital Paddington, has the largest maintenance backlog in the country. We have had floods, fires, sewage leaks and collapsed ceilings. I noticed that St Mary’s Hospital was not mentioned in the course of the statement. Can the Secretary of State confirm to me that it will be completed as one of the 40 hospitals by 2030?
Steve Barclay
St Mary’s is part of three aspects of the Imperial NHS trust: there is the work at Charing Cross in Hammersmith, where we are building the temporary ward to unblock the refurbishment, which will be floor by floor, and the work in Hammersmith with the cardiac—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) may want to chunter, but I am trying to explain the investment we are placing into the constituencies, so we have funding going into—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have asked the hon. Gentleman politely to stop shouting. I hope he will do so.
Steve Barclay
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We recognise the importance of the Imperial bid; that is why we are starting to build the temporary ward capacity at Charing Cross and the first phase of work is under way on the cardiac elective recovery hub, to bring cardiac work on to the Hammersmith site. On St Mary’s Hospital, we have already put in some initial funding to explore the new site with Transport for London and Network Rail. That will go into the rolling programme, of which St Mary’s will be part, alongside the redesign that is needed, taking on board the changes at Charing Cross and Hammersmith.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I unreservedly welcome this announcement for my Whipps Cross University Hospital, for my constituents and all the other residents. I know secretly, in his heart, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) rejoices with me—I want to out him on that point. He stood on the line with me when we tried to stop the last Labour Government closing that hospital, so together we will rejoice over this. I know he will; he is a decent chap. I simply say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that for 30 years I have campaigned for the hospital to be rebuilt. To build it now will be a fantastic delivery for our constituents. I have badgered him about it, as I have badgered his predecessors—who also include him—as Secretary of State down the past 30 years. Can he please answer one simple question? Will the work start physically, shovels in the ground, on this hospital in the autumn of this year?
Steve Barclay
Yes, we expect enabling works to start at Whipps Cross. I have been to the site with my right hon. Friend. We have seen the urgency of it. As he said, he has campaigned vigorously on this and championed it throughout. We are very keen, now that we have unblocked the issue around the RAAC hospitals, to start the enabling works on the cohort 3 sites as soon as possible. Obviously, we will, now that we have clarity, discuss with trusts the precise timetable, but the funding for the enabling works to progress will now be available, and we will work with the trust to take that forward.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
In what way is delaying work on Charing Cross and Hammersmith Hospitals speeding things up? This is the most shameful, self-serving and nakedly political statement I think I have ever heard. We have heard that Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust has the biggest backlog in the country. The Government tried for eight years to demolish Charing Cross Hospital, and now they are promising a portacabin there. The only thing that gives me comfort is that the Secretary of State and the whole rotten lot of them will be out of here in a year’s time, and we will have a Labour Government who will actually deliver for Imperial, for Charing Cross, for Hammersmith and for my constituents.
Steve Barclay
At pretty much every election the hon. Gentleman has stood for, he has said that all the local hospitals will be closed by a Conservative Government, so it is good to have him championing the redesign and refurbishment of those hospitals. What really undermined his question was the question from his colleague, the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). The whole point is that we need to look at the interaction between Charing Cross, Hammersmith and St Mary’s Hospitals—the design of services needs to be looked at across the Imperial trust as a collective. Vis-à-vis a potential new site at St Mary’s, there are questions relating to Transport for London and Network Rail. On Charing Cross, we need to create temporary ward capacity in order then to unblock the refurbishments, which we will do floor by floor. It is a very tightly constrained site and it needs a bespoke approach. That is what we are setting out. Where schemes can follow a standardised design, we will have a modular 2.0 approach, but some schemes that need refurbishment have particular site issues, and we will work through them in a more bespoke way.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
This is marvellous news across the country, but I would like to ask the Secretary of State about the decision on Lancaster. I have heard that we may gain a new hospital further down the line—we are in need of one. Any news he could give us would be fantastic not just for me, after all my lobbying of him and his predecessors—much like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—but for the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who is my hon. Friend in this context.
Steve Barclay
It is not just the Eden Project North on which my hon. Friend has been a vigorous campaigner: he has raised this assiduously as well. As he knows, the trust is at a very early stage in its consideration of what public consultation will be needed around the reconfiguration of services across Lancaster. We are not letting that stop our work to open a new surgical hub at the Royal Preston Hospital, for example. As he knows, I know the geography very well in terms of the interaction with Lancaster. There are a number of options on consolidation and expanding to two sites. I look forward to discussions with him as we take that forward.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Having asked the Government 14 times to release funding to West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust and other hospital trusts, I am relieved that they now have approval to proceed, but the Secretary of State will know, as the rest of us do, that the construction industry thinks that the 2030 date is pie in the sky. The Government have not been looking after our hospitals, so we have lost huge parts of the workforce and of our supply chains. Building magazine says that the contract notice for a delivery partner will not even be published until September. Of course, as I understand it, none of the major construction companies has even started to put together project teams to bid for the work. For all the talk of 2030, could the Secretary of State tell us how much progress he is prepared to promise before the next general election?
Steve Barclay
The announcement and the manifesto commitment were to build by 2030. The hon. Lady touches on the engagement with industry; Lord Markham has been engaging with industry. We have had a significant team, both within the Department and in NHS England, working on the standardised designs. The whole point is that we have seen in other sectors how standardisation allows us to construct much more quickly. It will also allow internal processes in government to be much quicker because we are not looking at each scheme in a bespoke way; we will have much more standardisation. That is how we will move at a much quicker pace. It has required us to take a little more time over recent months as we have finalised the plan, but now that we have that plan and clarity about the RAAC hospitals in particular, we will be able to move with much more pace.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the confirmation that the new Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust hospital in Basingstoke is one of the cohort 4 hospitals due for completion in 2032-33. It will serve residents in my constituency and those of a number of right hon. and hon. Members. We have a plan, a preferred site and an amazing team on the ground, so how can my right hon. Friend work with me and other colleagues to speed up this new hospital? It is badly needed to replace the current hospital, which was built in the 1970s to last 50 years. We have one of the biggest maintenance backlogs, and we really need the new hospital to meet the needs of our growing population. We have some of the highest levels of house building in the south-east. What can he do to help?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend has assiduously and passionately led the campaign on this. I stand ready to have further discussions with her. She is right about the trust going into the rolling programme; that is how it will be taken forward. As I touched on in response to the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), there are some questions that we are keen to work through—not least around junction 7, the land acquisition, and the service design—and I know that she will be at the fore in making representations on those points.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State clarify the position on North Manchester General Hospital? It is not mentioned in the written copy of his statement and I did not hear him mention it. When the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) announced the original building scheme, North Manchester General Hospital was a top six—if not the top—hospital. Its problems are not mid-20th century concrete; they are mid-19th century buildings that need replacing with modern buildings. I thank the Secretary of State for emailing me in the middle of his speech—it was very clever; I got the email when he was on his feet—to say that initial works and progress can start. That has happened—grounds are being cleared, a car park is under construction and a new mental health unit is being built on that site—but the final clearance for what was a half-billion pound scheme has not been given. The trust has told me in correspondence that it cannot get clearance. Will he give the final go-ahead now, and will he return to north Manchester and visit the hospital? I know that he has been before.
Steve Barclay
I have been before, as the hon. Gentleman knows, not least because I was an unsuccessful candidate in 1997, when he was elected to the House. I am very happy to ensure that a note comes with any further clarification—I will take that away and pick it up with the Department. I know that enabling works commenced in 2022. There have been extensive demolition works, which have continued into 2023. There is, as he is well aware, the key dependency for the Park House mental health project, which also needs to be factored in. The multi-storey car park is under construction, so that work is already under way. I hope that he can see the clarity that the statement will bring to the conversations that we can now have with trusts on enabling works and the next steps, but I am happy to get a more detailed note to him following the statement.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) in particular, as well as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the Member for Epping Forest, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), have led a showcase, turbocharged campaign for a new Princess Alexandra Hospital for Harlow in Essex. Any services in Essex benefit the whole of Essex. I also thank the Secretary of State for the £8 million invested in Southend University Hospital for a new, reconfigured A&E; plans are progressing very well. Does this multimillion-pound investment not show that we have a Government who are committed to improving healthcare for everyone across our brilliant county?
Steve Barclay
I very much agree. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the £8 million investment in Southend and the wider capital programme, not least the roll-out of diagnostic centres and new surgical hubs, which are all part of us tackling the pandemic backlog and of our commitment to investing in the NHS estate.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I place on record my deep sadness at the passing of Karen Lumley today? She was a dear friend, as well as a valued colleague, and she will be very much missed.
I thank my right hon. Friend for the confirmation of funding for the new women and maternity unit at Milton Keynes University Hospital. Can he give me an assurance that he will work with Joe Harrison, the excellent chief executive, and his team to bring forward as many enabling works as possible? The site is ready to be developed almost immediately.
Steve Barclay
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have frequent meetings with the chief exec of Milton Keynes University Hospital, not least because he provides national leadership in our development of the NHS app. I know that he champions the Milton Keynes site and its next steps, and I am keen to continue to work constructively with him.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I am overjoyed at this statement. I was grateful that my right hon. Friend took up my invitation earlier this year to visit Watford General Hospital. My hope at that time was to make the argument in person, at the hospital, for why it was so important that we had the new build, and he listened. This announcement is beyond my expectations. The words “fully funded” mean so much to my constituents across Watford and West Herts. It means a state-of-the-art, fully funded, world-class hospital, and it is the result of years of tireless campaigning by both myself and my predecessor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) has also said that he is supportive, which is fantastic news.
As well as accepting my heartfelt thanks for listening to all my pleas, arguments, pitching and probably annoying conversations about this, will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the leadership team at West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust for all their hard work and planning to make this a possibility today? Does he agree that the new hospital will not only transform healthcare for the entire area of Watford and West Herts but create a cutting-edge, 21st-century workplace for our fantastic staff and volunteers across the area?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend has not only championed Watford General Hospital; he has worked there as a volunteer on many occasions. He has been compelling in the representations he made to Ministers across Government on the case for investment in Watford. It is a huge tribute to him, and as he says, it is also a tribute to the wider leadership team in Watford. He is right that it will have a transformative effect, and I have seen at first hand, with him, the urgent case for investment in Watford that he has championed.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome this statement, especially the commitment to Milton Keynes University Hospital. It is a key hospital that serves my constituents, alongside Stoke Mandeville Hospital, which also enjoys a new paediatric A&E, John Radcliffe Hospital and Wycombe Hospital. The case of Wycombe shows that it is not just reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete that trusts are grappling with; the tower at Wycombe needs at least £80 million in maintenance and repairs, or preferably, as the trust plans, a full decant, with a £200 million purpose-built planned care centre. That will take national spending. What hope can my right hon. Friend offer Buckinghamshire patients that Wycombe’s plans can become a reality?
Steve Barclay
As I touched on a moment ago, there are a range of initiatives across the NHS estate. The leadership team from the Getting It Right First Time programme, including Professor Tim Briggs, recently visited Wycombe to discuss proposals with the senior clinical team, and we look forward to working constructively with the local integrated care system as it designs the right fit for Wycombe and the wider system.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his personal interest in and commitment to Kettering General Hospital and his visit to the hospital last July. Will he confirm that Kettering General Hospital’s place in the new hospital programme continues to be secured with a fully funded, redeveloped, improved and expanded hospital due on the existing site by 2030, in line with the original timeline?
Steve Barclay
As I set out in my statement, the place of Kettering in the new hospital programme is secure. That is in large part a result of my hon. Friend’s campaigning. He has raised this issue with me on a very regular basis and shown me at first hand the issues at Kettering. He has championed investment in Kettering General Hospital, and today’s announcement is a very positive day for the staff and patients of Kettering.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
On behalf of my constituents, particularly in Middlewich and Sandbach, I warmly welcome the excellent news on the rebuild of Leighton Hospital. I thank Ministers for responding to the determined local campaigning on this, commendably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) and also involving my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley). Without wanting to detract from that, could I again ask the Secretary of State to look at Congleton War Memorial Hospital? Will he meet me to discuss how the services and facilities there can be expanded and modernised? There is capacity for the site to serve the residents of Congleton, where demand is increasing, as house building has increased in the area.
Steve Barclay
I know that my hon. Friend has championed this investment in her health system. She is right that it serves a number of constituencies and is part of the wider system transformation that I set out, with other investments such as in diagnostic centres and surgical hubs. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), who leads on primary care, has been looking at the specific issue of new housing and how we can get the right level of contribution from new housing to local health facilities. I know that he will be happy to discuss that with her.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is fantastic news that the Queen Elizabeth Hospital is one of the new hospitals that this Government are committed to building, and I am delighted that the case I have been making with very strong local support has been accepted. On behalf of my constituents and everyone at Team QEH, may I offer huge thanks to my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary for the determination he has shown to resolve the RAAC safety issues? Will he confirm that this is a fully funded plan, so that there will be a fit-for-the-future hospital in King’s Lynn by 2030?
Steve Barclay
I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done to champion the case for King’s Lynn. He has raised this issue with me and the ministerial team on a very regular basis, and he has been compelling. I am happy to confirm, as set out in the statement, that this will enable King’s Lynn to be rebuilt, and that is fully funded.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement. I have been working with the Royal Berkshire Hospital on the Building Berkshire Together community engagement programme, and there is palpable enthusiasm in my constituency that we are going to have a new, state- of-the-art hospital on our doorstep. But, as my right hon. Friend said in his statement, we are in cohort 4, and there are issues with this site. Can he give us a guarantee that there will be a rebuild at the Royal Berks, and could he set out the next steps, so that I can reassure my constituents as to what lies ahead?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right on both counts—first, that the Royal Berkshire is part of the rolling new hospital programme, and secondly, that there are complexities with that site. As she knows, part of the site is grade I listed, and there have been some specific issues with the existing site on which survey work has been undertaken. That is having an impact on the target date for work. We are funding a mental health crisis facility this year, along with the survey work, and I look forward to having further discussions with her as that progresses.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
This announcement could not be better news for the people of Broadland. In the west of my constituency, they are going to be served by a brand new build at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, and a brand new hospital at the James Paget will be serving constituents at the other end of my constituency, joining the work of the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in the centre. Can my right hon. Friend just confirm that the modular nature of the design will still provide the absolutely first-class facilities that the people of Norfolk deserve?
Steve Barclay
Today’s announcement is transformative for healthcare in Norfolk, for the reasons my hon. Friend has set out: a new hospital at the James Paget and a new hospital in King’s Lynn. Of course, there will be further work from Government on the diagnostic centres and surgical hubs, about which there will be further discussion. In terms of the quality of the modular design, we are bringing the country’s leading experts together, as well as engaging with the market to finalise those designs so that we can have the best inputs as we standardise the design, and then roll that out as the template for schemes at King’s Lynn and James Paget. The quality of the scheme should be of a very high order.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
After three and a half years of tireless campaigning—of constant lobbying of the Government, raising the high structural risk profile of Airedale hospital due to its aerated concrete construction—I am delighted to hear today’s announcement from the Dispatch Box that we will be getting a new Airedale hospital that is going to be fit for the future. I put on record my thanks to the Airedale NHS Foundation Trust for its hard work and to my neighbouring Members in this place, as well as to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Health Secretary for listening to our concerns and taking them on board. Can my right hon. Friend come and visit the great team at Airedale hospital, and will he give reassurance to me that our new Airedale hospital will be built and open by 2030?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend has campaigned assiduously over the past three years to make a compelling case for Airedale. I very much look forward to having the opportunity to visit in due course, and the commitment in today’s statement is to ensure that that hospital is built to the 2030 timescale.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Given the Secretary of State’s answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), could I press him a little further for some clarity on the replacement for Basingstoke hospital? Could he confirm that it is agreed that a replacement is needed for the hospital; that the money is in the budget to do so; and that, notwithstanding the complexities regarding the site that he outlined in his previous answers, a site will be found and a new hospital will be open in the early 2030s to serve all of our constituents?
Steve Barclay
On the issues that my right hon. Friend raises, it is agreed that a replacement is needed and that North and Mid Hampshire will go into the rolling programme for the new hospital programme. As a result, a site will be found, and the intention is to work to a 2032-33 timescale—that is the plan. The original timescale was already stretched because of some of the complexity involved, and I have also signalled just how long previous designs for hospitals have taken, so we are speeding up the construction side but we also need to address some of the issues, particularly around junction 7 and the site design.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I very warmly welcome this announcement and pay tribute to the leadership of Leighton Hospital, who have relentlessly advocated for this. It has been a three-year, team-effort campaign, particularly with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and others. I thank the thousands of residents who signed the petition backing this campaign, and I know the team will be itching to get started. Could my right hon. Friend perhaps outline what the next steps will be for Leighton and the other sites?
Steve Barclay
Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s campaigning work, as well as the work he did in his local hospital as a volunteer during lockdown, which was extremely well received. It is why he has campaigned—along with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton —to make the case for this investment. I am very happy to have further discussions with him as liaison with the trust on the next steps moves forward.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I am sure the Health Secretary has become absolutely sick of the sight of me campaigning for Milton Keynes’ new women’s and children’s hospital, both in his current role and his previous role at the Treasury. In the event that he is not sick of the sight of me, would he like to come up to Milton Keynes and look at the site, and where we can keep our foot on the pedal and get some enabling works going? We are going to hit that 2030 target, but there is no reason why we cannot get cracking and get started straightaway.
Steve Barclay
It is always a pleasure to see my hon. Friend whatever the issue, but he is right that he has assiduously raised the case for Milton Keynes, as has his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart)—they worked very effectively as a team to make that case. I look forward to having further discussions with him as we take the plans forward.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—he who is first will be last, and he who is last will one day be first.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I congratulate all Members who have been successful with their bids for new hospitals. Sadly, there is one name missing from the announcement: Doncaster. Although I understand that the RAAC hospital replacements are desperately needed, and I know that many of my constituents will benefit from the new A&E department in Bassetlaw, that does not remove the need for Doncaster to have a new hospital. There is a brownfield site right in the centre of Doncaster that is shovel-ready and ready to go, so will the Secretary of State—as well as maybe the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up—meet me to see what we can do to get Doncaster a new hospital? It would not just be a new hospital: it would revitalise the city of Doncaster, and we really need this.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to champion the case of Doncaster. As he knows, while it is not in his constituency, the investment we are making in Bassetlaw is for patient care that, in a number of instances, will directly serve his constituents in Doncaster. That is why it is right that we look at capital investment on a system-wide basis, and I am very happy to have further discussions with him in conjunction with his local integrated care system as to that ICS’s future plans regarding its capital investment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for responding to questions for exactly one hour. Iain Stewart mentioned the passing of Karen Lumley as well; she was a personal friend of mine. She was a wonderful person and a great Member of Parliament, and my deepest condolences go to Richard and the entire family. We will miss her.
Animal Welfare
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will provide the House with an update on the Government’s progress on animal welfare. Before I start, would you indulge me in allowing me to pay tribute to Peter Jinman, who was chairman of the Farm Animal Welfare Committee and also heavily involved with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, who I understand passed away last night? He was a great man and a friend of mine, and did an enormous amount of work in the area of animal welfare.
We are a nation of animal lovers, and animal welfare has been a priority of the Government since 2010. Since then, on farms, we have introduced new regulations for minimum standards for meat chickens, banned the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens, and made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses in England. For pets, we have introduced microchipping, which became mandatory for dogs in 2015; we have modernised our licensing system for activities such as dog breeding and pet sales; we have protected service animals via Finn’s law; and we have banned commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens. In 2019, our Wild Animals in Circuses Act became law, and we have also led work to implement humane trapping standards by banning glue traps. We have done more than any other party on animal welfare, delivering on a manifesto that was drafted with the public’s priorities in mind.
Further to the steps I have outlined, in 2021, we published an ambitious and comprehensive action plan for animal welfare that set out an array of future reforms for this Parliament and beyond. That action plan’s wide-ranging measures relate to farmed animals, wild animals, pets and sporting animals. They include legislative and non-legislative reforms, and extend beyond domestic actions to cover international engagement and advocacy. And we have delivered—since the publication of that action plan, we have delivered on four key manifesto commitments. First, we passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which recognises in law that all vertebrate animals and invertebrates such as crabs, lobsters and octopuses are sentient beings. That Act will form the bedrock of the animal welfare policy of the future. We passed the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which introduced tougher sentences for animal cruelty, increasing maximum sentences from six months up to five years. Last month, we made cat microchipping compulsory, which will help reunite lost pets with their owners. Just this week, we announced that, having brought the Ivory Act 2018 into force in 2022, we will be extending it to cover five endangered species: hippopotamus, narwhal, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus.
In addition to legislating, we have launched the pioneering animal health and welfare pathway. It charts the route forward for improved farm animal welfare for years to come. This Government and industry partnership are already transforming welfare on the ground. The pathway does that through annual health and welfare reviews with a vet of choice, supported by financial grants.
I can tell that Opposition Members are feeling weary listening to the expansive list of delivery, but I can assure them that I am not done yet, because today we are taking two further steps in delivering our action plan. First, we are announcing the launch of the new Animal Sentience Committee, which will advise Government on how policy decisions should take account of animal welfare. The committee’s membership provides expertise from veterinary and social science and covers farm, companion and wild animals. We expect the committee to begin its work next month.
Secondly, we are announcing a consultation on new financial penalties of up to £5,000 for those who commit offences against animals. That will mean there is a new enforcement tool to use against the small minority of people who fail to protect the health and welfare of animals. This could apply, for example, if an animal is kept in poor living conditions due to a lack of appropriate bedding or shelter.
On top of those measures, we continue to support the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), which will implement our manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies. Also making strong progress are private Members’ Bills that ban the import and export of detached shark fins and that ban the advertising and offering for sale here of low-welfare animal activities abroad. I thank the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) respectively.
The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill started nearly two years ago. It was designed to implement several of our ambitions, including banning the live exports of animals, seeking to prevent pet theft and new measures to tackle livestock worrying. Unfortunately, its multi-issue nature means there has been considerable scope-creep. The Bill risks being extended far beyond the original commitments in the manifesto and the action plan. In particular, Labour is clearly determined to play political games by widening the Bill’s scope.
The Bills and regulations that we have already passed demonstrate the enormous progress that can be made with single-issue legislation, so we will be taking forward measures from the kept animals Bill individually during the remainder of this Parliament. We remain fully committed to delivering our manifesto commitments, and this approach is the surest and quickest way of doing so, rather than letting that Bill be mired in political game-playing. Having left the EU, we are able to and will ban live exports for fattening and slaughter. There have been no live exports from Great Britain since 2020, but our legislation will ensure that that becomes permanent and we remain committed to delivering it.
We are committed to clamping down on puppy smuggling. We will ban the import of young, heavily pregnant or mutilated dogs, and we will be able to do that more quickly with a single-issue Bill than with the secondary legislation required under the kept animals Bill. We are committed to banning the keeping of primates as pets, and we will do that by consulting before the summer recess on primate-keeping standards. They will be applied by secondary legislation to be brought forward this year. We also look forward to progressing delivery of the new offence of pet abduction and new measures to tackle livestock worrying.
I am conscious that there are many other campaigns on aspects of animal welfare. I want to assure the House that, in making this change to how we will implement the measures outlined, we are open to future consideration, but we will focus on delivering these key elements. Delivering these measures, as well as everything we have already delivered as part of and beyond the animal welfare elements of our manifesto, shows a Government who care about animals and do not just talk about the issue or play games with it. We are committed to maintaining our strong track record on animal welfare and to delivering continued improvements in this Parliament and beyond. I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
We were here just a few hours ago, at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs oral questions. When the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) asked when the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill would return, the Secretary of State said all was well. She said:
“I have spoken with the business managers and expect an announcement on the progress of the Bill very soon.”
All the while, DEFRA Ministers were plotting the extinction of that very Bill. The Secretary of State trotted out the same thin gruel on rural animal welfare that we have just heard from the Minister. She named only four ways they had improved animal welfare in 13 years—not even one for each Conservative Prime Minister, although I recognise that the Minister tried a bit harder just now.
The political decision taken by the Government today represents a profound setback for animal welfare in the UK. It confirms, once again, that they are too weak to deliver their own legislation. This time, it is innocent animals that will suffer the consequences. Three Environment Secretaries ago, we were promised:
“The Kept Animals Bill will bring in some of the world’s highest and strongest protections for pets, livestock and kept wild animals.”
It was supposed to be a Bill packed with ambitious reforms. It promised to close loopholes such as the one that allows the sale of dogs with unnecessary mutilations. It would have ended the cruel practices of exporting live animals for slaughter, keeping primates as pets and puppy smuggling. Despite public outcry and the best efforts of animal welfare organisations, the Government have chosen to break their promise and scrap the Bill they so enthusiastically presented to us two years ago.
The Minister said:
“Labour is clearly determined to play political games by widening the Bill’s scope.”
The only people playing political games here are the Government. Attempting to use the fact that my party is stronger on animal welfare to justify the decision to scrap that Bill is a strange thing to do. I am proud that Labour is the party of animal welfare, although if the Minister is so convinced I am running the agenda on animal welfare, perhaps we should swap places. Perhaps he should also take a look over his shoulder, because we know how many of his colleagues behind him on the Government Benches want this legislation and our reasonable and necessary measures to strengthen it. If every Department chose his approach, the Government would have to scrap every Bill. Oppositions are here to oppose. If the Government cannot handle basic scrutiny, it calls into question their ability to govern at all.
The last time the Bill came before the House was October 2021—three Prime Ministers ago. Why has it taken the Minister so long to come to this decision? As with the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill—another world-leading piece of animal welfare legislation scrapped by the Government—the Minister promises that the Government’s commitments can be delivered more efficiently via single-issue Bills. It is interesting to note then that they still have not banned the import of fur and foie gras, as promised in that Bill.
This morning in DEFRA orals, the Secretary of State gave a strong assurance that the import of pregnant dogs and dogs with mutilations such as cropped ears will be banned. Will the Minister provide a timeline for the proposed single-issue legislation for all the promises made in the kept animals Bill? I would be particularly interested to hear a date for the legislation to ban imports of young, heavily pregnant or mutilated dogs, as was so clearly promised just four hours ago.
Earlier this week, the Dogs Trust, supported by more than 50,000 people, appealed to the Prime Minister directly, urging the Government to pass the Bill. It and numerous other organisations have campaigned tirelessly for the reforms that the Bill was intended to introduce, and I put on record my gratitude for their unrelenting work. It is not just animal welfare groups that are passionate about this issue; Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and we would be hard-pressed to find a Member who does not receive multiple emails, letters and phone calls every day on these issues.
This statement is not what the public want, it is not what our dedicated animal welfare charities want and it is not what the Labour party wants, so why will the Government not listen? Is it that Ministers lack the courage to act in the face of internal party opposition, or have they lost control of their own Back Benchers? It is maddening to watch as, time and again, this Government make cruel and callous decisions with no regard for their real-life impact. Although not surprising, today’s announcement is a huge step backwards for animal welfare and a blatant dismissal of public trust and expectation. The Tories are not committed to animal welfare; they are committed to self-preservation, and they are taking increasingly reprehensible measures as a result. Is it really too much to ask to live in a country where issues such as the welfare of our animals are put above the interests of a party desperately clinging on to power?
Make no mistake: Labour is the party of animal welfare. From ending the testing of cosmetics on animals and banning fox hunting to tightening the rules on the transport of live animals, my party has always led the way when it comes to protecting animals. The Government cannot get away with this. It is time for them to be held accountable for their constant dereliction of duty and contempt for the people that entrusted them to lead. If they cannot meet the challenges before them, they should step aside and let a party that can.
Mark Spencer
I think that was a demonstration of the games the hon. Member seeks to play and would like to play, but while he plays his political games, we are getting on with delivering for animals. I can reread the list of all the things we have delivered, and even he had to acknowledge that it is an extensive list.
We have committed ourselves to delivering the measures in the kept animals Bill, and we will deliver them. Live exports are a very good example. Not a single live animal has been exported since we left the European Union. We will close that loophole and make sure we deliver. We continue to be committed to delivering on puppy smuggling. There will be a statutory instrument this year on keeping primates as pets. That was a manifesto commitment, and we will deliver on it very soon. Pet abduction is a very good example of where we can go further. In the kept animals Bill, we said we would protect dogs from abduction, and by approaching this in the way we propose today, we can include cats in that measure to protect them too. We are already making reforms to the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. We are engaging with the zoo sector to make sure that we can capitalise on the progress we have already made to ensure we deliver for those animals.
We are very proud of our record on animal welfare. We continue to be committed in this area, and we will deliver before the next general election.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I have campaigned for more than two decades for an end to the live export of animals for slaughter, so I have to say I do feel a sense of frustration and disappointment that the kept animals Bill is not going to come back to Parliament. I really appeal to the Minister and the wider Government to bring us a new Bill. Let us get on with this, and let us ban this cruel trade.
Mark Spencer
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and I pay tribute to her dedication in this area. As I said earlier, the good news is that not a single live animal has been exported during the time she spoke about. That gives us a window of opportunity to introduce this legislation, and to make sure that the practice is not reintroduced at any point in the future.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am grateful for advance sight of the statement, and I do not dispute any of the actions referred to by the Minister. We always welcome any positive progress on animal welfare measures, but that is not entirely the point. We are evidently here to listen to a rolling back. Let us not kid ourselves that this is anything apart from that. There was a commitment to a kept animals Bill, but it has now been dropped like a stone, and on the afternoon of the last day before recess. We cannot be expected to be content to progress in that way. How can we believe the UK Government on animal welfare measures if that is how they behave? I am afraid the suggestion that this is happening because of some kind of scope-creep caused by Opposition Members stands up to no scrutiny at all.
I can see why it may suit the Government to say that, rather than pursuing the kept animals Bill, they will deal with individual issues. Of course, that is the same trick they did with the employment Bill. What that meant in reality was a lowering of standards, a cherry-picking of commitments to suit their own Back Benchers and an entirely unsatisfactory situation. We have the same worries here. I am very concerned about the evident lack of will from the UK Government to act decisively to ban foie gras, for instance, despite the unforgivably cruel way in which it is produced. Why on earth will they not commit to that? They seem to be missing in action, as far as I can see, on fur. I would certainly welcome a ramping-up of progress on puppy and kitten smuggling. When will that happen? I would like to hear from the Minister on all those issues and to know when we can expect to see action.
While the UK Government have been shilly-shallying on all these issues, the Scottish Government have pushed ahead with the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023, which closes loopholes that had permitted illegal hunters to use trail hunts as a fig leaf for their crimes. I ask the Minister, will the UK Government follow the Scottish Government’s example and ban the loopholes that have permitted English and Welsh hunters to continue their illegal and immoral blood sports?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, but also for her acknowledgement of the huge amount of progress we have already made. [Interruption.] Well, she acknowledged the list of things that we have delivered as a Government. The point is that we are still committed to delivering all of the measures in the kept animals Bill. I think that, with a number of the commitments we have made, we can actually go further and deliver these things faster than they would have been delivered by pursuing them through a single Bill. We remain committed to delivering them, and we will deliver them in good time.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
MBR Acres is a facility in Huntingdon that breeds beagles for the purposes of animal scientific testing. A number of my constituents have written to me raising serious concerns about the inhumane and cruel treatment to which some of those dogs are subjected. Will the Minister consider meeting me to discuss how some of the measures he has announced might be made applicable to those animals? Will he also consider closing the loophole in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which says that animals bred for the purposes of scientific testing are exempt from its protection?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend will be aware that there is already an extensive amount of legislation on the statute book to protect animals. However, it is always a pleasure to meet her, and I am sure we can arrange a meeting either with me or with another relevant DEFRA Minister.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
“In our action plan for animal welfare, the Government committed to exploring further action in this area, which we are free to do now that we have left the EU.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 320WH.]
Those were the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) two years ago. Members were told that a consultation on banning the fur trade was under way, but we are yet to hear the Government’s response or their plans to stop importing animal cruelty through this evil practice. Either this is negligence, or they do not care about these animals—which is it?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that fur production is already banned in the UK. We launched a call for evidence on fur, and we will publish the results very soon.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The UK proudly has some of the strongest animal welfare protections in the world, and my right hon. Friend is right to highlight the progress that His Majesty’s Government have made on animal welfare. However, there are a number of areas where we can do more, and one such area is the dangerous importation of heavily pregnant dogs as part of the puppy smuggling trade. Will my right hon. Friend please outline how we can quickly move to better protect animals from this cruel trade? While others seek to play politics, I am happy to help the Government to deliver that.
Mark Spencer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will be aware that stopping puppy smuggling is a manifesto commitment. We know there is a huge amount of support among parliamentarians and stakeholders for stopping it. It is a priority of ours for a single-issue Bill, and such a Bill would give us the opportunity to bring forward additional measures. For example, under the kept animals Bill, bans on imports of young puppies, heavily pregnant dogs and those with mutilations, such as cropped ears or docked tails, would have been implemented through secondary legislation, which would have taken quite a long time. Under this route, we will be able to do that much more quickly and to deliver it sooner than we would have done.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I do not know whether the Farming Minister is watching the latest series of “Succession”—he might find all the Machiavellian antics, betrayal and backstabbing a bit too much like taking the day job home—but the actor Brian Cox, who plays Logan Roy in the series, is backing Compassion in World Farming’s campaign to ban factory farming. How is the Minister, with this very petty and piecemeal approach to animal welfare legislation, going to get our farm animal welfare standards up to the point that all consumers and all our voters want to see?
Mark Spencer
I would point the hon. Lady to our track record of introducing regulations for minimum standards for meat chickens, banning conventional battery cages and introducing CCTV in slaughterhouses. We really have made huge progress on animal welfare. I also pay tribute to UK farmers up and down the country, who get out of bed in the early hours every morning to look after their animals, and to make sure they are well tended and well cared for. I think we have a very proud record of animal welfare and animal production in the UK.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I thank the Minister for reminding me of the work this Government have done on dog welfare, particularly on puppy breeding and protecting service dogs. Would he consider supporting Emilie’s law, which I introduced this week as a ten-minute rule Bill? It seeks to make it a criminal offence if somebody allows their dog to irresponsibly kill another dog, which is a loophole in section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. We protect service dogs and assistance dogs if somebody’s dog injures or kills them, but we do nothing at the moment for pet dogs. Will the Minister sit down with me and consider supporting Emilie’s law?
Mark Spencer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for drawing that to my attention now, but for doing so in private. I can only imagine the stress and upset of someone having their dog attacked by another dog in a public place, and that ending up in the fatality of their pet. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how we can assist her with it.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I and many other Labour Members have long called for the kept animals Bill to be brought back to the House so we can work collectively with the Government to deliver on animal welfare, not to mention to deliver on the Conservatives’ solemn pledge in their last election manifesto. However, many Tory Back Benchers are weak on animal welfare and on action, and today’s statement shows that Ministers do not have the courage to face down so many rebellious Conservative Back Benchers. The kept animals Bill was originally delayed because Ministers could not agree on policy in line with their Back Benchers. Does the Minister agree that today’s statement binning the Bill, and letting down millions of British animal lovers, demonstrates that the Government no longer have control over their Back Benchers?
Mark Spencer
That is just wrong. This demonstrates that we think there is a better and more efficient and effective way to deliver the things we have committed to. The good news is that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to help and support the Government in delivering them as these measures go through the House, albeit in a different format. I look forward to seeing him in the Lobby supporting the measures we are going to bring forward.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
My constituents do not really care whether these issues are dealt with in one big Bill or a series of single-issue Bills; what they are concerned about is that the Government deliver on the promises they made to protect animals from cruelty. My constituents are no different from the Minister’s, and many of them write to me regularly about animal cruelty issues and about how they want the Government to act.
Unfortunately, many of the proposals the Government are promising to bring forward today cannot apply in Northern Ireland because the laws in Northern Ireland are made not by this Government but by the European Union as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework, including those on the export of live animals, the import of mutilated dogs, hunting trophies imports and—if the Government decide to bring forward legislation on it—the import of foie gras. What can the Minister do to ensure that my constituents have the same benefits of such legislation as those in other parts of the United Kingdom?
Mark Spencer
Characteristically, the right hon. Gentleman speaks directly and frankly, and I support lots of his comments about wanting to deliver on animal welfare. We are trying to achieve that through this statement, albeit through a different vehicle from that originally proposed. He tempts me to stray into areas that are way beyond the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I know his concerns are recognised in Government Departments and not least in Downing Street, and I know that they will seek to help him with the challenges he faces.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I had the pleasure of visiting the Dogs Trust facility in my constituency last year, where I saw the excellent work it does and heard about its campaign against puppy smuggling. The Minister has yet to explain the timetable for this separate single-issue Bill, even though he has been asked a number of times, including by those on his own Benches. It is important to note that there is concern not only among Dogs Trust supporters; in the last few minutes, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation has said that it, too, is deeply disappointed by this statement and that it represents a huge “missed opportunity”. These are not party political games; the same message is coming from Conservatives, the Opposition and animal lovers across the country. Can the Minister give us a firm timetable for dealing with the cruel practice of puppy smuggling?
Mark Spencer
I am glad the hon. Gentleman recognises that we continue to be committed to delivering on puppy smuggling, but the measures in the kept animals Bill will now be divided into smaller, bite-sized chunks so that we can get through them and deliver them more quickly. Instead of being bogged down in endless amendments and political games, we can now get on and deliver on all these commitments, and expedite the process of making sure we get them on the statute book.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
My predecessor, Neil Parish, was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on animal welfare from 2010. Like other farmers in the west country, he cared deeply about welfare standards. That was evident to me last weekend when I visited the Devon county show. The Australia and New Zealand trade agreements will come into effect next Thursday, in spite of opposition from my party. The Australia trade agreement
“simply opens up UK agricultural markets for Australian produce, whether or not produced to the same standards that are legally required of UK farmers.”
Those are not my words, but those of the National Farmers Union. Does the Minister agree?
Mark Spencer
I, too, had the privilege of visiting the Devon show and meeting west country farmers and seeing the brilliant livestock they produce to the highest welfare standards. The hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect on the Australia trade deal: we specifically and deliberately excluded pork, poultry and eggs from that deal because they did not meet the welfare standards we expect in the UK.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister is right to say that we are a nation of animal lovers, which is why today’s announcement to drop the kept animals Bill is such a disappointment and such a failure by this Conservative Government, so will the Minister apologise to the millions of animal lovers up and down the country who were expecting this legislation to come through?
Mark Spencer
What I can do is reassure the hon. Lady that we are still committed to delivering all those measures in the kept animals Bill, but we will do that more quickly, efficiently and effectively than we would have done using that vehicle. So the commitment has not changed; only the vehicle for delivery has changed.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Whipsnade zoo carries out fantastic, world-leading conservation work, which I have been lucky to see at first hand. Thousands of my constituents wrote to me during the pandemic calling on Government support for zoos, which never came. Then there was the incompetence over Brexit negotiations, which stalled conservation work even further, and now they have dropped zoo standards entirely. Why are they so weak? We are indeed a nation of animal lovers; it is a real shame that this Tory Government are not.
Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady is factually incorrect. First, I pay tribute to the zoo sector. A number of zoos up and down the country have the highest welfare standards and the best work and research into supporting endangered species anywhere in the world. We enjoy a close working relationship with the zoo sector and will continue to capitalise on this to identify non-legislative ways of reforming the sector, including boosting the excellent and valuable conservation work they do, and by the end of this year we will publish updated zoo standards, which we have developed in collaboration with the sector and zoo experts along with the Zoos Expert Committee, and we will raise standards and make enforcement even more effective.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to the questions asked of him.
We are in the exceptional circumstances of having had three statements, business questions and an urgent question today, which puts a lot of time pressure on the two Backbench Business debates. Clearly they are both about important subjects, so the decision has been taken by the movers of the second debate to postpone it until a future date, and I think that is absolutely the right thing to do. Those who are present for the second debate are therefore not needed and may go home or attend to other business.
Backbench Business
Ukrainian Holodomor
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Holodomor was a genocide against the Ukrainian people.
The motion stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), but I am grateful to the many right hon. and hon. Members from five different parties who supported the application for a debate. I am also grateful to the Government for allowing time today to debate this important issue in the Chamber. Before I move to the substance of the debate, I acknowledge the presence of His Excellency Mr Vadym Prystaiko, the ambassador of Ukraine to the UK, and his colleague.
Today, right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity to recognise the holodomor officially as a genocide against the Ukrainian people. His Majesty’s Government’s long-standing policy is not to recognise a genocide unless a competent court has declared it as such, which is very unlikely in relation to a series of events that took place 90 years ago, so this is likely to be the only chance we have for the UK to be added to the ever-growing list of countries that recognise the atrocities committed by Stalin’s USSR in Ukraine in 1932-33 for what they were: a genocide.
Ninety years ago, in the spring of 1933, millions of Ukrainians starved to death. However, there was no natural famine in Ukraine. There was plenty of grain to go around, but it was all subjected to Moscow’s impossibly high grain tariffs. Moscow then exported millions of tonnes of grain to the west while Ukrainians were dying in Stalin’s forced famine. The word “holodomor” means to inflict death by hunger, and that is exactly what the USSR did in Ukraine. I will come to the terrible details of the famine, but, in discussing genocide, it is important also to understand the context and the motivations of the USSR’s leadership in Moscow.
While holodomor means “death by hunger,” the term has come to refer to the entire Stalinist campaign to destroy Ukrainian identity and nationalism at the end of the 1920s, leading to the forced famine of 1932-33. Once Stalin had consolidated his power as party leader by the end of the 1920s, he began to impose much harsher controls on independence, including banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the arrest, deportation and execution of Ukrainian nationalists and the cultural elite. Intellectuals, writers and artists committed suicide rather than be deported to Russia. Wholesale agricultural collectivisation took place from 1929, while wealthy peasants had their property taken away. By the mid-1930s, 100,000 such families had been deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan.
I turn to the terrible details of the famine, which was the final piece of Stalin’s attempt to destroy the Ukrainian nation and people. Stalin was aware—we have seen this demonstrated so many times over the past year or so of the war—that the Ukrainian national spirit and identity reside strongly in the rural and agricultural communities across the country. In response to resistance to agricultural collectivisation in 1932-33, Stalin’s Government imposed impossibly high grain requisition quotas, which had to be satisfied before any grain could be kept by the local population. In 1932, not a single Ukrainian village met the quota assigned to it. Anyone who kept grain destined for Russia was executed by firing squad. Special police roamed the countryside, searching homes and summarily executing those found to have stored food, however small the amount. Men, women and children starved to death in their villages. But this was not a famine; there was enough grain to feed the entire population comfortably. The grain was exported to Russia and Ukrainians were prevented from escaping their country.
At the height of the famine, 25,000 people died of starvation every day, including children who were obviously too small to feed themselves. Some tried to commit suicide to escape the horror of starving to death. Gareth Jones, a well-known journalist, wrote:
“I walked…through villages and 12 collective farms. Everywhere was the cry, ‘There is no bread; we are dying’”.
Those who refused to steal or to leave died of hunger. Those who tried to steal were shot. Those who tried to leave were returned to their villages to face the same impossible choice. Villages turned to cannibalism to survive. The dead were unburied and the sick untended. Those are difficult details for us to hear.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I attended the holodomor memorial in Kyiv with the hon. Lady. All the things she describes are laid out in great detail there. I was so overcome with emotion I could stay for only 10 minutes, although the visit was over an hour. It is unbelievable that we have not recognised it as a genocide. It is so very clearly a genocide. In the United Kingdom we need to review how we define genocide if we cannot define the holodomor as one.
Mrs Latham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which shows that recognising the genocide has cross-party support. We are all concerned about that.
The exact number of victims is unknown because the Soviet Union refused to allow reporting of the famine, but it is estimated that between 7 million and as many as 10 million people died in Ukraine itself, with more in the neighbouring Soviet states. There was no natural famine in Ukraine, as I said, yet millions died from starvation due to Stalin’s policies. The cultural elite were deported, Ukrainian culture and language suppressed, and rural communities broken. The Russians closed their Ukrainian borders and refused to send aid, while simultaneously selling millions of tonnes of grain to the west. In the aftermath of the holodomor, the Soviet leadership resettled some of the decimated villages with ethnically Russian communities, aiming to eradicate Ukrainian independent identity. All of that is very clear evidence that the holodomor meets the conditions required for genocide.
Raphael Lemkin, the man who defined genocide, put it very clearly in a speech at the 20th commemoration of the holodomor in New York City in 1953. He described it as
“perhaps the classic example of Soviet genocide, its longest and broadest experiment in Russification—the destruction of the Ukrainian nation”.
He recognised that there were no attempts at “complete annihilation”, as had taken place in the holocaust. However, as he says, in an incredibly powerful quote which rings true to this day, given what is happening in Ukraine now:
“And yet, if the Soviet program succeeds completely, if the intelligentsia, the priests and the peasants can be eliminated, Ukraine will be as dead as if every Ukrainian were killed, for it will have lost that part of it which has kept and developed its culture, its beliefs, its common ideas, which have guided it and given it a soul, which, in short, made it a nation rather than a mass of people”.
I have no doubt that the holodomor amounted to genocide, an attempt by Stalin to destroy the Ukrainian people.
I will now turn to why I believe the House should agree to the motion. As a matter of principle, we as a country should recognise genocides whenever and wherever they occur. The crime of genocide is rightfully seen as one of the worst atrocities that can ever take place. All countries should identify it and stand against it in the strongest terms. The UK Government have constrained themselves by recognising only those genocides that have been declared as such by a competent court. One of the biggest challenges in obtaining a court ruling is that, in international law, referrals often need the consent of the states involved. This process is even more difficult when the successor state to the accused, the Russian Federation, is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Therefore, irrespective of the weight of evidence that the holodomor was a genocide, it is incredibly unlikely that we will ever see the case tried by a competent court.
In the absence of official Government recognition, today’s substantive motion will constitute a resolution of the House of Commons specifically designating the holodomor as a genocide against the Ukrainian people. I have often been asked, “Why now?” That is a perfectly reasonable question, 90 years after the event, but I believe the House of Commons should recognise the holodomor as a genocide. After all, those who survived it have now died. In the two previous cases where the House has recognised a genocide, they were ongoing, so the resolution of the House could help to serve as a warning to the perpetrator that they would not get away with it.
The memory of historical events, particularly historical trauma, is fundamental to national identities. Through my work on the International Development Committee, I have been closely involved in hearings where we analysed the impact of Srebrenica and the importance of its recognition on Bosnian national identity today. I have also visited Rwanda on multiple occasions and have heard the same argument. As the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said, we visited Ukraine earlier this year and went to the holocaust memorial centre, which is a moving place to go and a reminder of the worst periods of Ukraine in living memory—until now.
The importance to Ukrainians of recognising the holodomor is shown by the fact that the Ukrainian Parliament has criminalised holodomor denial in Ukraine. That matters not just to victims but to the perpetrators, who need to be reminded that they cannot get away with it. The House should act now because the holodomor is still relevant both to Ukraine and to Russia, and to the ongoing maintenance of international legal norms. The second reason for acting now is the situation that hangs over this whole debate: the war in Ukraine.
In the current war in Ukraine, as I heard during my visit to Kyiv in February, the Russians have been accused of crimes against humanity. We were shown cars burnt out and riddled with bullet holes, where Russians had gunned down civilians trying to escape their homes. We must give confidence to the Ukrainian Government and the international legal order that the UK Government —or at least the UK Parliament—will not stand for human rights abuses and war crimes. Putin has said that his current intention is to eradicate the whole concept of Ukraine—very like Stalin’s. That potentially falls within the definition of genocide. I believe that international order should act, first to ensure he is not able to carry out his threat and secondly, to hold him to account for his intention.
Recognition of the holodomor is important for the Ukrainians living in Ukraine, for Ukrainian refugees in this country and for descendants of Ukrainians living in this country who came here many years ago, and who wish for it to be recognised. It is so important that we do that, because we are beginning to become an outlier. Australia, Canada, Ireland and Brazil have all officially recognised the holodomor as a genocide. Until recently, both Germany and the USA were in a similar position to the UK, as their Governments did not recognise a genocide unless it had been confirmed by an international court. However, since the Russian invasion, in an attempt to show their support, both countries have passed resolutions in the Bundestag and in Congress respectively, recognising the genocide at a parliamentary level.
In March, the French lower house, the National Assembly, officially recognised the holodomor, and the Senate followed suit last week. At the turn of 2023, Bulgaria, Belgium and Iceland joined the ranks of countries officially recognising the holodomor. On Tuesday, the Slovenian Parliament declared the holodomor a genocide. In coming months, the Spanish Parliament and the Parliament of the Netherlands will have the opportunity to do so.
Given the ongoing war in Ukraine, it is more important than ever for the UK to show our support, to deter Russia from any potential thoughts of genocide, to reassure Ukraine that the international legal order will hold anyone who commits crimes to account, and to show solidarity with our recently greatly increased Ukrainian communities in the UK, in memory of the terrible tragedy.
I would like to finish by reiterating my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to secure this debate, which is incredibly important for every single Member across the House and, as I said, the Ukrainian communities in all our constituencies.
The holodomor was, to my mind and to paraphrase Raphael Lemkin, the archetypal genocide. The USSR murdered millions of Ukrainians, using policies of forced starvation and forced migration, reminiscent of what is going on in Ukraine today. Stalin in the 1930s, like Putin today, was aiming to destroy the nation of Ukraine and the concept of Ukrainian identity, so I hope that today we will vote to recognise the holodomor as a genocide. Then we can send a clear message to Putin, and to the world, that the UK Parliament stands with Ukraine and that war crimes, either historical or current, will not be tolerated.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this important debate.
I start with the recent testimonies of Petro Mohalat and Oleksandra Zaharova, two Ukrainians who survived the holodomor as children. They said:
“There was a brigade with pitchforks who came to every house searching for bread. I was five at that time. We locked the door and all the windows but they used crowbars to come inside. I saw people who died. They made a pit and threw all the bodies there. My father went to Western Ukraine, taking everything good from our home to exchange for food, but he got nothing. ”
Some 90 years on, the memories of those dark days live on, as does the campaign for the world to recognise the great famine for what it was: a genocide. It is estimated that the holomodor claimed the lives of at least 4 million people—around one in eight of the Ukrainian population. Entire villages perished as Soviet authorities knowingly set unmeetable grain quotas, raided homes for any hidden food to confiscate and banned internal travel to stop people leaving.
The mass starvation was no accident. Contrary to propaganda, it was not just the result of drought or bureaucratic mismanagement—it was an act of mass murder, a calamity deliberately inflicted on a nation by an imperialist, totalitarian regime. It was engineered to crush Ukraine’s resistance, and it coincided with Stalin’s campaign of Russification of suppressing Ukrainian culture and identity, reversing the earlier Bolshevik policy of encouraging it. The holodomor was a great crime against humanity, and its impact has been felt in Ukraine and by the Ukrainian diaspora for generations.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that for many communities around the country, such as the Ukrainian community in Reading, this is still a very live issue and many people are deeply concerned about this debate?
Nadia Whittome
I completely agree with the points made by my hon. Friend. I know he has been working closely with the Ukrainian centre in Reading.
What further deepened that immense trauma was the state-enforced silence that followed. For more than half a century, those who survived the great famine and saw their loved ones die of hunger were not allowed to openly discuss the horrors they had been through. Under Stalin’s rule, even mentioning the famine carried the risk of being sent to a gulag or executed.
Evidence of the scale and true causes of the tragedy were concealed and fabricated. Even the statisticians who conducted the national census, which showed a dramatic population decline, were killed, and the data was manipulated to hide the number of victims. That was a systemic suppression of historical memory—the collective gaslighting of a nation. While the archives have since been opened and the truth is now easier to access, Putin’s regime has continued with a policy of downplaying the seriousness of this atrocity and denying its genocidal nature.
Agnieszka Holland’s film “Mr Jones” tells the real-life story of Gareth Jones, a Welsh journalist who risked his life to inform the world about the holodomor, and who was murdered a few years later. In 2021, a screening of the film in Moscow, organised by a human rights non-governmental organisation, was interrupted by a group of masked men who stormed the venue. When the police arrived, they shut down the screening, locked the doors and spent hours interrogating the audience, rather than the mob who came to disrupt it. Last year, in Mariupol, Russian occupiers used a crane to dismantle a holodomor memorial.
It would be impossible to have this debate without mentioning the current context in which Ukraine is fighting yet another attempt to violently subjugate it. Let us send a clear message that we see and understand Ukraine’s struggle against Russian imperialism, not just over the past 15 months or since 2014, but across centuries. While the oldest survivors of the holodomor are still alive, let us honour their decades-long battle for truth and justice. Let us join 28 countries around the world, and the European Parliament, in recognising the holodomor as a genocide.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I rise to support the motion, and to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for bringing the debate to the House.
Central European countries such as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Croatia and, of course, Ukraine are the most active countries in the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which I currently chair as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. It is very much from that perspective that I will speak today. Why are those countries among the most active in our alliance? It is because they know persecution and oppression. They have lived it, and in Ukraine many live it today. They live with the results of the holodomor of the 1930s. I believe that that is one reason why the Ukrainians have such a strong character now, and are able to stand so commendably against what Putin is doing to attack their country.
All too often—I hope I will be forgiven for saying this—those of us who have lived our lives mainly in the UK, and have even reached a certain age, see opposing persecution or discrimination on account of what people believe or who they are as a principle worth fighting for. That is worthy, but for the central European country colleagues with whom I work it is more than a principle; it is a lived reality. They have suffered, their countries have suffered, their families have suffered. My Slovakian counterpart as a Government-appointed representative on the IRFBA is Ambassador Anna Záborská. While she was growing up as a young girl, her father spent 12 years imprisoned by the communists for his beliefs. Ambassador Robert Rehak, the vice-chair of the alliance and the Czech Republic representative, was a teenager in the late 1980s when the communist state police came to his school and told him, “'If you speak out once more, we will take you away.” He knew that they meant it, because he had seen bodies taken away through the streets of Prague in black bags.
Today, we have heard again about the deliberate starvation of people in Ukraine by the USSR within living memory, during Stalin’s purges in the 1930s. To us, the cruelty that was inflicted on millions then is almost beyond comprehension. Farming families were thrown out of their homes and off their farms, losing their livelihoods, and were deported or given the option of being forced to work in collectives or starved. They were barred from returning to the fields that many had farmed for generations, even to gather a few grains, on pain of being killed—as many were. According to one account, teenage children were placed as border guards on the watchtowers above the fields of grain so that local people did not return to their farms to gather even a small amount of food. One such youth even betrayed his own father, who had tried to return for food. His father was killed as a result, and, tragically, the boy was then killed by his grieving grandfather.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire spoke of cannibalism during that period. I read, with incredulity, an account of children's limbs being displayed for sale as meat on a market stall. This dehumanisation, this total absence of respect for people as human beings, contrasts starkly with what motivates so many of us today to work for freedom of religion or belief—the importance of respecting every individual as a human being, whatever their beliefs. During the period we are speaking of today and the communist decades, communism was militantly atheistic and declared religion to be its mortal enemy. Clergy were murdered and countless believers cast into prison and work camps, where many suffered indescribable torture. Hannah Arendt, the philosopher and feminist scholar, says of totalitarianism—a state that seeks to control not only actions but thoughts and emotions:
“wherever it has ruled, it has begun to destroy the essence of man.”
In the novel “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”, by Czech writer Milan Kundera, the character Sabina, a lifelong citizen under communism, says:
“the moment someone keeps an eye on what we do, we involuntarily make allowances for that eye, and nothing we do is truthful.”
Perhaps the most utterly moving book that I have read describing the holodomor and other heartrending suffering in the USSR, particularly in Ukraine, is “Stalin’s Children” by Owen Matthews. He traces his family over three generations, several of whom lived through Stalin’s purges. The book was published over 10 years ago, but it is harrowing to read it today as Putin crouches at the door of so many of the countries I mentioned at the beginning of my speech—Ukraine, yes, but many other countries that border or are near that country.
That is why I believe it is so pertinent that the next freedom of religion or belief ministerial will be held in the Czech Republic at the end of November under the title, “FoRB Under Authoritarian Regimes”. The people of the countries in that region lived through those regimes. They have stories to tell and lessons that they have learnt. They have a collective message to convey out of their collective memory about what can happen when an ideology seeks to suppress religious belief, and with it human dignity and life itself.
That is a message that needs to be told. A 2019 survey found that only 51% of US millennials—their UK counterparts could well be the same—believe that the declaration of independence offers a better opportunity for freedom and equality than the communist manifesto. Any romanticised perception of communism must be debunked. In the UK, the Holocaust Education Trust has in recent years been doing a tremendous job educating our children and young people about the horrors of the holocaust, so that maybe—just maybe—“never again” becomes a reality for their generation as it has not been for ours. Similarly, the horrors of life under the communist regime before and after the Nazis must be told to this young generation—horrors that include the holodomor. Recognising the holodomor as a genocide is one way we can begin to address this.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak after three such powerful contributions. I commend in particular my hon. Friend and colleague on the International Development Committee, the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), for her opening remarks, which set out so many of the important facts.
There is a very large Ukrainian diaspora in Scotland, including the south of Scotland and my constituency. During the war, there was a prisoner of war camp near Lockerbie called Hallmuir, which is important to the Ukrainian community because the Ukrainian chapel created by prisoners there has been preserved and is now being enhanced. It was a great pleasure to welcome his excellency the ambassador to the chapel prior to Putin’s invasion, and indeed prior to the contemplation of that invasion.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire said, the holodomor is a hugely important issue for the diaspora and it was an issue before the invasion. It is not an issue that should be addressed because of the invasion; it is an issue that should already have been addressed. One reason for it not having been addressed is ignorance. People did not know the full scale of the atrocities and it is only more recently that what happened to the people of Ukraine prior to the second world war has become known. Having that knowledge puts into context some of the things that happened in the build-up to the war and subsequently, and it is important that people see events in that period in that context.
We have heard many details of the atrocities. I found it so difficult to hear a young man’s account of the system whereby people would come round to remove dead bodies. His grandmother was dead, but his sister was still breathing. However, the man who came to collect the bodies took the view that he would just take her anyway, because then he would not have to come back the next day or the day after. It is virtually impossible for us here and now to understand how it was to live in that environment. Previous speakers have set out other equally horrendous examples.
Through his illegal war and propaganda, we have seen Putin try again to stop Ukraine feeding the world, which has caused hunger in other countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, by obstructing grain exports. Of course, he then blamed Ukraine for people not getting the food they need.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend add to that list of consequences the energy crisis throughout Europe, which is partially affecting the world, which was driven by the fact that, for an extended period, the supply of gas from Russia to Germany was maintained, the result of which was to create an energy crisis at such a pitch that countries such as the UK are now suffering inflation and far too high gas prices? Does he believe that that is also a very important factor?
David Mundell
I agree. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Part of Putin’s strategy is to create as many problems as possible for other countries, and then to blame those problems on somebody else. In this House, we must always be clear that the energy crisis, at its heart, comes from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
As my hon. Friends have mentioned, it is very difficult to say exactly how many people died in 1932-33. Estimates vary, but a 2003 UN report put the figure at about 7 million to 10 million people. Those numbers do not, however, tell of the privations experienced, which we have just touched on. They do not tell of the slow and painful deaths. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) mentioned the turning to cannibalism; many people were compelled to do that. But the holodomor did not come from a poor harvest, bad weather or poor stewardship of land, which we often associate with the Soviet era; it was man-made—by Stalin and his apparatchiks. It was a deliberate act, the culmination of an assault by the Communist party and Soviet state on the Ukrainian people. Their agricultural produce was requisitioned from them by the Russian leadership. Their land was taken from them. They were starving, but banned from leaving their homesteads. Many had no choice but to die. None of it needed to happen. It was the result of deliberate decisions and what was the reason? The productive agricultural lands of Ukraine were a patchwork of small holdings, and people having a little more than enough to feed their own families made them ideological enemies of the Soviet state. That so-called “class element” has perhaps given some commentators cause to question whether the holodomor constituted a genocide. They are, however, making a distinction without a difference. It is clear that the deliberate and systematic murder of millions of people cannot be classified in any other way than as genocide. We in the UK need to recognise that.
I pay tribute to people such as Dr Peter Kormylo in Scotland, who has long campaigned on these issues. As I said in my opening remarks, these issues did not come to the fore because of recent events, but they are all the more poignant, as others have said, because of those events. We can send a very clear message to the Ukrainian people that we not only recognise the suffering they are experiencing at this moment, but understand the suffering they have experienced previously to get them to this point in their history. Therefore, it is very important that the House follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire and adopt the position that she so eloquently set out.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
We have heard from hon. Members across the Chamber some of the personal horrors that were experienced. When we hear words such as “millions”, it is tempting not to drill down and understand that, when we are talking about millions of people being killed in this way, we are talking about millions of horrific individual experiences. Members have done well in reflecting that.
The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) deserves praise for bringing this issue to the Chamber today, along with the Backbench Business Committee. It is vital for us to discuss the holodomor and to get action on recognising it as a genocide as a result of this debate because, as she pointed out, the UK Government’s position on this is—let us be delicate about it—out of date, to say the least. They need to change that, but I will come to that in a moment or two.
The hon. Lady talked about how important this is for Ukraine’s identity, a theme that will continue. She eloquently described some of the horrors of the holodomor that were enforced on people in Ukraine by Stalin.
The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) talked very movingly about the testimony from families, and described the holodomor as a great crime against humanity, and it is. Like others, I am very keen to bring that into the current context of the illegal war in Ukraine.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raised the subject of freedom of religion and belief, and pointed out that the Ukrainian people know repression; they have experienced it for so long that they have had to become resilient to it. Again, she recounted some shocking examples of the horrors inflicted on them. We should listen to that, because without the international spotlight being on the illegal invasion by Putin’s forces, who knows what other horrors might be going on, in addition to those being wrought on the people of Ukraine? It is important for this to be recognised and seen.
The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) talked about the diaspora and how important it is for the Ukrainian people here and in other countries to see the UK Government recognise their situation, and it is vital that that is done. It is 90 years since the holodomor. It was, as others have said, a man-made famine that claimed millions of lives and, as I have said, led to millions of individual stories of suffering. Its acknowledgement is a crucial chapter in our global history, for its implications reach far beyond the borders of Ukraine. Today, Ukraine is fighting not only for the respect and sanctity of its own borders, but for the very principles of world order and the international rule of law.
In understanding the holodomor, we should be clear about its origins. It was not simply a tragedy, but a political act of terror perpetrated by Stalin’s regime. It was a horrifying result of policies designed to quell Ukrainian independence and aspirations. Starvation was used as a weapon of control and domination. It was a strategy, as we have heard time and again, that resulted in the death of millions of people.
Why should the UK recognise the holodomor as a genocide? Recognition is more than just a label; it is about admitting the truth of historical events and acknowledging the extent of suffering endured by the Ukrainian people. It serves as a message that we will not turn a blind eye to unimaginable acts of cruelty and injustice. It is a vital marker in the current context of Putin’s illegal war. Recognising the holodomor as a genocide holds implications for the present illegal war and sends a strong message to the world that any use of starvation as a weapon—we have heard today about other tactics that have been deployed by Putin’s forces to try to force deprivation on the people of Ukraine—is utterly unacceptable and constitutes a most grave violation of human rights. In this recognition, we also remember and honour the victims and survivors of this horrific event.
As we have heard, the European Union and 28 other countries, including the United States, Canada and Australia, have officially recognised the holodomor as a genocide, but the United Kingdom has yet to take this step. We must align ourselves with these nations not simply to match them, but to uphold the principles of justice, human rights and historical accuracy that we, as nations of the UK, should hold dear—if we do not, I ask the Minister why not. Our Government here in the UK should formally recognise the holodomor as a genocide, reaffirming our commitment to human rights and sending a clear message to any regime that contemplates using these tactics as a weapon.
The UK Government could and should establish a special tribunal for the crime of aggression and, in addition to military aid, we should continue to support Ukraine by fostering strong political, economic and cultural ties. Let us join in the commemoration activities, champion the rights of Ukrainians here and abroad, and continue our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Acknowledging the holodomor as genocide is a tribute to and a remembrance of millions of victims, an assertion of historical truth and a powerful stand against the repetition of such horrors. Let us not shrink from our responsibility to history and humanity. The time for recognition is now.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) and the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), who is not with us today, for securing this debate. Their commitment to raising the profile of the holodomor has rightly drawn recognition from across the House, and it is truly a worthy subject for this House to consider. I also acknowledge our very good friends from the Ukrainian Embassy, who are in the Gallery.
This week, we saw the embodiment of Ukraine’s continued defiance and bravery, as President Zelensky attended the G7 and ensured that the crimes against his country rightly remain at the epicentre of global focus. We saw that bravery exemplified again when he returned and visited marines on the Vuhledar-Maryinka defence line. As the fierce fighting in Bakhmut and other areas continues, the consensus and resolve across this House, and the commitment of the UK more broadly, to support Ukraine in driving back Russia’s barbarous war machine has never counted more. We have heard many powerful speeches today, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome).
The war in Ukraine is entering a critical stage. Freedom must win out over tyranny and Putin’s aggression must fail. As Ukrainians continue to defend themselves and prepare for a critical offensive, it is crucial that they know that nations around the world support their fight without wavering. I reiterate that the Opposition will stand with them for as long as it takes. Their decisive victory is not only morally right; it is the route to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition told President Zelensky when he met him in Kyiv, whichever party is in power in the UK in the future, there will be no let-up in Britain’s resolve. We will continue to support Ukraine’s brave defenders and its people in their quest for freedom, peace and justice.
In light of this debate, we must also continue to reflect on the immense historical suffering Ukraine has endured, as well as the remarkable courage and resilience of its people and the progress that has been made over the years, which has sadly been pushed back in so many areas by Russia’s barbarism. This debate has brought home the fact that today’s illegal and unconscionable war comes after a history of Ukraine being subjected to immense brutality, especially in the terrible events of the holodomor—one of the most atrocious instances of man-made famine in European history, which as we have heard today culminated in the deaths of millions of people.
Like many hon. Members, when I was in Ukraine just a few months ago I not only witnessed the aftermath of the Russian atrocities in Ukraine today, but visited the National Museum of the Holodomor-Genocide and the memorial. The content that was displayed there was incredibly moving and shocking. I draw attention to my declaration of interest as a shadow Minister in relation to that cross-party trip.
Everybody should recognise the reality of what happened to the Ukrainian people. It was very sad to see that some of the exhibits in the museum had been removed for safety because of the current conflict. It is clear that Stalin’s role in catalysing enforced, man-made, widespread starvation, particularly in 1932 and 1933, understandably and rightly lives on in the Ukrainian national psyche and among Ukrainians worldwide. That is true not least in Canada, where I spent time when I was younger, nearly 25 years ago, and first heard about that terrible period in history from Ukrainian Canadians.
The barbarism we saw 90 years ago carries as much salience today as ever, particularly given what we have seen since. The personal stories are some of the most harrowing, as we have heard today. A congressional commission that took evidence in the late 1980s heard from an individual who grew up in the village of Stavyshche, who spoke of watching people dig into empty gardens with their hands in a desperate bid to find anything to eat, of witnessing people bloated from extreme malnutrition collapsing on the road one by one and, of course, of the mass graves.
It is a tragedy that today we again see mass graves in Ukraine and hear terrible stories of atrocities being committed. As with the war today, there was a clear perpetrator behind the famine. Stalin’s motivation to transform and mould the Ukrainian nation in his own image at any cost is mirrored in Putin’s warped, imperialist world view, the consequences of which continue to devastate the lives of Ukrainians. Indeed, Putin’s misguided and perverse attempts to wipe out Ukrainian identity are the most recent manifestation of Russia’s penchant for interference, subjugation, war and atrocity.
This topic carries particular weight for me as a Welsh MP, as I said when we debated it in Westminster Hall a few months ago. A great deal of what know about the holodomor came to us thanks to the bravery of a Welshman, Gareth Jones. We have heard about the excellent and very moving 2019 feature film, “Mr Jones”, which was directed by Agnieszka Holland. Gareth Jones was born in Barry, in the Vale of Glamorgan—just a few miles away from my constituency—in 1905. Of course, as many Members will know, it is suspected that he was murdered by the Soviet NKVD in 1935. Sadly, so little changes.
After witnessing the horrible consequences of Stalin’s tyranny at first hand, Gareth Jones detailed those consequences—we have heard many quotations today. He said:
“I walked along through villages and twelve collective farms. Everywhere was the cry, ‘There is no bread. We are dying.’ In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it. I threw an orange peel into the spittoon and the peasant again grabbed it and devoured it. The Communist subsided.”
In a letter to David Lloyd George, the then British Prime Minister, Jones wrote:
“Dear Mr. Lloyd George,
I have just arrived from Russia where I found the situation disastrous. The Five Year Plan has been a complete disaster…and has brought famine to every part of the country. I tramped alone for several days through a part of the Ukraine, sleeping in peasants’ huts. I spoke with a large number of workers, among whom unemployment is rapidly growing. I discussed the situation with almost every British, German and American expert… The situation is so grave, so much worse than in 1921”.
Of course, Jones defied Soviet attempts to censor him, and reported the truth of the holodomor to millions. In another echo of history, the Kremlin continued to deny the existence of the famine, launched a mendacious campaign against Gareth Jones and tried to silence him, but it could not. The parallels with today are striking: journalists, correspondents and reporters from many countries, not least Ukraine itself, are putting themselves in danger to expose the true extent of Russia’s barbarism and war crimes. They are integral to thwarting Putin’s concerted information war and to bringing justice to those who have been subjected to war crimes and atrocities.
I have a few questions for the Minister about the current context, which draws so much on those horrible historical parallels. We have seen concerted attempts by Russia to lie about and weaponise food supplies to the rest of the world. In a dreadful parallel to the way it used food as a weapon of war in the holodomor, it is now doing so with the rest of the world. The truth about that must be known and fully understood globally. Indeed, there are reports this week that the Ukrainian port of Pivdennyi has halted operations because Russia is not permitting ships to enter, effectively cutting it out of the deal allowing safe Black sea exports.
What are we doing to tell the world the truth about Russia’s continued interference with world food supplies from Ukraine, including the mining of fertile Ukrainian agricultural land, and the impact on prices? What steps will be taken to rebuild Ukraine, its agricultural capacity, its ability to thrive and its economy in the future? What will we do to seize, not just freeze, Russian state assets?
The upcoming reconstruction conference is a critical opportunity to support Ukraine and our diplomatic coalition, and it must be seized. The Minister knows that he has our full support in his endeavours for that conference, and I thank him for discussing it with me. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that adequate resources are generated at the conference, particularly to support reconstruction? Efforts will also be needed to bring back full agricultural capacity to Ukraine, particularly through the removal of landmines and unexploded ordnance, which we know cover so much of the country and could cause problems in food production for years to come.
I will write to the Minister about a number of concerns about our sanctions regime. We have debated the sanctions regime in many Statutory Instrument Committees, but I have some specific concerns on which I hope he will come back to us urgently, because we all want the most robust regime against the atrocities that Russia is committing today.
Historically and today, the price that Ukrainians have had to pay for their freedom is immense. The events of 90 years ago are an anguishing and chilling reminder of the consequences when tyranny runs without constraint and imperialism without restriction. We are tragically unable to undo the horrors of the past 90 years ago, but we can take resolute steps to prevent them from happening again today.
Given the comments that have been made today, I have one fundamental question for the Minister. It is clear that these were appalling, historic atrocities in the holodomor that deserve proper recognition. It was a tragedy on an appalling scale. I hope he will be able to set out clearly what the Government’s policy is on the recognition of genocide and respond to the important questions raised, particularly in relation to the legal and precedential context, and how the Government intend to respond if the motion is agreed by the House, not least given the international movements on this issue, which a number of Members referred to, in particular the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire.
Finally, I assure Ukrainians at home and abroad that we see your suffering and bravery, both historical and present. We will remember the terrible events of the holodomor, and we will stand resolutely with you today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this debate and for maintaining over many years a spotlight on this horrific issue. I thank all colleagues for their moving contributions to today’s important debate. We were pleased to welcome in the early stages of the debate the Ukrainian ambassador to the Court of St James’s—we value his terrific diplomacy on a daily basis. Of course, we must never stop learning from these events.
I was grateful for the contribution from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and I will cover the questions he asked before I make substantive remarks. I can reassure him that we are very active in countering disinformation with regard to food supplies. He asked some pertinent questions about the international efforts to rebuild Ukraine with regard to agriculture and wholesale reconstruction. That will be the theme of the Ukraine reconstruction conference next month. I will not pre-empt the content, but I am pleased that he will be involved, along with other shadow Ministers. I would be pleased to consider his queries regarding our sanctions regime if he puts them in writing.
I turn to the substantive question raised in this debate. In simple terms, when it comes to the Government’s stance on genocide generally, there is universal agreement that the holodomor was one of the darkest chapters in Ukrainian and European history. It was a vast and horrific man-made disaster that killed millions of innocent people, as we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, so calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire and others to designate it as a genocide are wholly understandable. Nevertheless, I believe that there are sound and logical reasons for this Government to maintain the long-held position of UK Governments and refrain from making determinations about whether a genocide has or has not been committed.
It is a long-standing policy of the Government that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent court, after consideration of all the evidence available, rather than Governments or non-judicial bodies. This approach ensures that genocide determinations are above politics, above lobbying and above individual, political or national interests. It means that UK Government references to genocides are harder to dismiss by those responsible for genocidal acts. The Government believe that this remains the right approach, because it gives our words authority. This in no way detracts from our recognition of the appalling events of the holodomor.
Drew Hendry
Everybody in this Chamber is on the same side in wanting this to be explored properly and recognised. Is the Minister saying that the European Union and the 28 other countries that have recognised this as a genocide do not have the legitimacy that he is saying the UK Government do? That does not necessarily hold with most people’s understanding of this matter.
Leo Docherty
I am saying that, notwithstanding the other important political events that have happened in other Parliaments, it is very important for the long-term legal integrity of the UK Government’s position that we maintain our consistency of approach. That does not detract from the horror of the holodomor, as I have said, nor our recognition of the appalling brutality of Stalin’s policies and regime, and nor does it dilute our determination to remember the victims of the holodomor, as the Prime Minister did by lighting a candle at the memorial for them when he visited Kyiv in November. Other colleagues in this House have also done so, and have reflected upon that this afternoon. Of course, our officials in Ukraine, including our ambassador, regularly attend similar commemoration events.
Today, we stand firm in our support for Ukrainians amid growing evidence of appalling atrocities committed during Putin’s illegal war. As colleagues will know, we have supported our Ukrainian friends since 2014, and we continue to be at the forefront of international support for Ukraine, in both humanitarian and military support. We were the first country in the world to train Ukrainian troops; we were the first in Europe to provide lethal weapons and to commit tanks; and just this month, we were the first to provide long-range missiles. I am very pleased that we are now at the forefront of a coalition to train and equip the Ukrainian air force.
I will briefly turn to accountability, which is an important theme, given the debate we have had. We have been working alongside our Ukrainian friends and the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s office to help them investigate and prosecute alleged war crimes. We have been working alongside the EU and the US to establish the atrocity crimes advisory group, in order to co-ordinate international support for Ukraine’s war crimes investigations, and we welcome the step taken by the International Criminal Court to hold those at the top of the Russian regime to account, including Vladimir Putin. In March the UK co-hosted the Justice Ministers conference, alongside the Netherlands. That conference brought together global partners to enhance financial, practical and technical support to the ICC and its investigation into the situation in Ukraine. Very importantly, we are part of the core group of G7 nations that are exploring options to investigate and prosecute the crime of aggression committed in and against Ukraine, including a potential special tribunal. Accountability is at the heart of our support to our friends in Ukraine.
Stephen Doughty
I was pleased to be invited to a meeting with the Ukrainian Justice Minister and the UK Attorney General during that period, and I thank the Minister for that—he knows he has our full support on those prosecutions. Could he give us an idea of the timeline for that working group on the special tribunal? Obviously, this is an idea that has been in the ether for some time now.
Leo Docherty
That is a valid question, and the answer is “as soon as possible.” These things are not easy; if they were, we would have done them already. Work is underway apace, and my colleague the Attorney General visited Kyiv earlier this year in order to expedite some of that work. We will keep colleagues in this House updated.
To conclude, the holodomor and Putin’s war are two of the darkest chapters in Ukraine’s history. Our stance is that any determination on genocide must be made by the courts; that does not, of course, detract from our recognition of the holodomor as the most appalling disaster, one that resonates today in the shadows of Putin’s modern aggression. The UK is supporting Ukraine to fight back and to bring those responsible for appalling acts of brutality to justice.
David Mundell
I fully understand what my hon. Friend is setting out, but for those in the Ukrainian diaspora in the UK, given all the things he has mentioned that the UK is currently doing, how would the UK’s standing be diminished in any way by recognising the holodomor as a genocide?
Leo Docherty
I do not contend that it would be— I think our support is clear, including support to Ukraine’s judicial system and the ICC to investigate and prosecute alleged war crimes. Of course, we share Ukraine’s determination that Putin’s illegal invasion must fail and that justice must be done. As President Zelensky said earlier this month in The Hague, there can be no peace without justice. The desire for Ukraine to prevail, and for justice to prevail, remains something that unites us all across the House.
Mrs Latham
I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members across the House who have taken the time to attend this important debate on the last day before recess, which is not the best day. We have had some incredibly thoughtful contributions and some harrowing and shocking examples of what happened during the holodomor. Members from all parts of the House have shown a great deal of cross-party unity in today’s debate, which is not the same in every debate we have in the House. The holodomor was a terrible crime against the people of Ukraine, and I am glad that the House finally has the opportunity to express a formal view on its classification as a genocide, although I have to say I continue to disagree with the Minister and his predecessors on the determination to which they have come.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that the Holodomor was a genocide against the Ukrainian people.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
The second Backbench Business debate has been deferred, so the motion is therefore not moved.
Business without Debate
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Not moved.
Business of the house
Ordered,
That notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the British Nationality (Regularisation of Past Practice) Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before it has been read a second time.—(Ruth Edwards.)
Asylum Seeker Accommodation Off Wirral Peninsula
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I am grateful to have finally secured an Adjournment debate on a matter of such great significance to my constituents and, I would hope, to all those who believe in the need for a more compassionate asylum policy. On 14 April, officers at Wirral Council were informed by Home Office officials of Government proposals to accommodate up to 1,500 vulnerable asylum seekers on a vessel berthed in my constituency of Birkenhead. The vessel will be located on the site of the Wirral Waters development, an active work site in an area of Birkenhead without adequate transport links to local amenities, services and community support networks. To all intents and purposes, it would be a floating prison ship.
I should be clear that, as far as I am aware, no deal has yet been concluded between the Home Office and the owners of Peel Ports to accommodate refugees at Wirral Waters. However, given that large barges and ferries are already being deployed elsewhere in the country for the purposes of housing refugees, and that the Home Secretary has staked her reputation on adopting a punitive approach to those who come to this country seeking sanctuary, the direction of travel is clear.
When news of the plans broke, it caused considerable concern across my constituency. Questions were rightly raised about the capacity of the borough to cope with a scheme of this scale and nature, and whether our overstretched and underfunded local services would be able to provide effective support to such a large number of refugees without there being a serious impact on the services provided to local people in one of the most deprived communities in the country.
The proposed location of the vessel is the £4.5 million Wirral Waters development site—that is a cornerstone of the ambitious programme of regeneration now under way in Birkenhead—and that has caused great consternation. After years of delay, work is well under way in bringing that project to fruition. Businesses and communities across Birkenhead are counting on the project to succeed, but it is hard to see how that work can safely continue if the site becomes home to as many as 1,500 people.
The implications of the proposal for my constituency are serious, but I want to be clear that my concerns first and foremost are for the welfare of the refugees themselves. I have not called this debate to say, as other Members have in previous debates, “Not in my backyard.” Instead, I proudly and without equivocation say that refugees are welcome here. The question that the Government must answer today is fundamentally a moral one: how on earth can they justify a policy that treats fellow human beings with such inhumanity?
Wirral has a proud tradition as a place of refuge, from my ancestors who fled famine in Ireland to the Ukrainian families who are making it their home today. We are proud of our record of opening our doors to those in need. Our borough has taken the second-highest number of refugees in the Liverpool city region across all Home Office pathway programmes, behind only the city of Liverpool itself.
It has accepted the highest number of people under the Homes for Ukraine scheme in the entirety of the Liverpool city region. However, we need to ensure that people who come to the UK in the pursuit of refuge are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about the importance of compassion towards refugees in this country. My community has also accommodated many needy people. Does he agree that there needs to be more support from the Home Office in many cases? I raised a case with the Minister recently—he was very generous in helping me with the matter—of a child who would have been unable to sit their standard assessment tests in Reading, and would have been moved to Plymouth at a time when it was vital for them to continue their education in their existing school. Does my hon. Friend agree that there ought to be more thought from the Home Office about supporting refugees at times of great need, not moving them when it is unsuitable to do so?
Mick Whitley
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I think this debate is all about dignity and respect, and I hope the Home Office and Ministers will be mindful of that.
The Government’s policy of using disused ferries, boats and barges to house refugees may satisfy the legal criteria of their statutory duty to house refugees, but it falls far short of the obligations we owe towards those in need and it betrays the trust that these vulnerable people have placed in us. As soon as I learned of these proposals, I immediately wrote to the Home Secretary. By the standards of the Home Office, the Minister for Immigration’s response was remarkably prompt: I only had to chase him up three times in writing and raise a point of order in the House before he got back to me. Of course, his letter fails to acknowledge my request for a meeting with him and Home Office officials, and he has not engaged in any meaningful sense with my concerns about the welfare of the refugees whom he intends to strand on an active worksite on the periphery of my constituency or the impact that will have on local services. I have been forced to pursue an Adjournment debate because of the Home Office’s stubborn refusal to be transparent about its plans. I understand that, from the Minister’s perspective, much cannot be said publicly, but refusing to engage, even in confidence, with the local Member of Parliament about a decision of such great significance to their constituency is not only discourteous but, frankly, absurd.
As I said when I raised this matter on a point of order on 17 April, Members have a right to know what is happening in the communities they represent. With the recess imminently approaching, I hope the Minister may be more obliging in providing some clarity. First, if an agreement is reached to accommodate asylum seekers on Wirral Waters, what steps will be taken to address the health needs of refugees living in a cramped and overcrowded environment, where disease could spread rapidly? Secondly, what additional financial support will be made available to Wirral Council to ensure that refugees get the support they need, without there being an adverse effect on the quality of support available to local people living in one of the most deprived communities in the country? Thirdly, what steps will the Government take to ensure that refugees can access local amenities, services and vital community networks, rather than being left to rot on a worksite, considering that dramatic cuts to local bus services have left the area without adequate transport links? Finally, what steps will the Government take to ensure the physical safety of the refugees, especially in the wake of the terrible scenes outside the Suites hotel in Kirkby in February, when a mob attempted to storm the hotel? I believe that, were the Minister to seriously and honestly engage with all those questions, he would quickly realise just how unworkable and unethical the proposal is.
The Minister for Immigration said in his reply to me—I expect this to be echoed in the response we shall hear shortly—that the Government have had no choice but to implement such extreme measures and that asylum accommodation is now costing the taxpayer £6 million a day. We have heard that this is being driven by the rise in small boat crossings experienced over the last year, but if we are looking for someone to blame for the crisis, we should turn not to the desperate men, women and children who felt they had to risk their lives on dangerous channel crossings, but to Government Members. Since 2014, the asylum backlog has more than doubled, despite the UK receiving just 8% of all asylum applications made across the European Union and the UK in 2021. As of 31 December 2022, more than 161,000 people were stranded in limbo waiting to have their claims heard with the primary cause being that applicants are waiting longer than ever to have their claims processed. This is a Conservative crisis for which innocent people are being forced to pay the price.
I secured this debate to talk about the situation facing my constituency of Birkenhead, but it would be remiss of me not to end by reflecting on the broader national context. The evolution of asylum policy in this country has followed a clear trajectory towards ever more punitive treatment of those who have done nothing more than exercise their legal right to claim asylum. It has culminated in Ministers attempting to house refugees on disused ferries and in this House’s voting for the Illegal Migration Bill, a despicable Bill which breaks entirely with international law. Yet none of it has done anything to stem the numbers of people coming to the UK in search of safety, and nor will it. All that the hostile environment has done is perpetuate the misery of people who have already experienced the most unimaginable suffering.
But there is an alternative. That begins by enshrining the principles of respect and dignity at the heart of a new, fairer asylum system. It necessitates the establishment of safe and legal routes to the UK so that no one is ever forced to risk their lives, or their loved ones’ lives, in the English channel. It requires the Government to get serious about making the investments needed to tackle the asylum backlog and end the miserable limbo which so many asylum seekers are forced to endure for so long. And it means that rather than treating them as a burden, we should be harnessing the experience, ability and talent of people waiting for their asylum claims to be heard by allowing them to seek paid work, contribute to the economy and find accommodation of their own. There is a better way.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing this debate. The concerns of Members of this House and their constituents should be taken seriously, and they are being taken seriously. I will set out shortly the work we are doing and are looking to do with Birkenhead.
First, however, it is right to set this in the national context, as the hon. Gentleman did, because the situation we as a country find ourselves in is not sustainable. The number of people crossing the channel in small boats has placed the asylum system under enormous pressure. The continued occurrence of these dangerous, illegal and wholly unnecessary journeys has left us in the invidious position of having to resort to using hotels to house asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute in order to fulfil our legal obligations. The enduring solution is of course to stop the boats and break the business model of the people smugglers, which is why we have brought forward the Illegal Migration Bill. In the meantime, however, it is right that we take steps to minimise the impact on local communities and reduce the burden on the taxpayer of the use of hotels.
The Home Secretary and I have been clear that hotels are inappropriate and we must shift to more suitable forms of accommodation. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a hotel in Kirkby in the Liverpool city region which was the subject of violence—unacceptable levels of violence—earlier this year, but that highlighted the difficulties of pursuing this route for housing asylum seekers and the need to find better, more sustainable solutions.
The challenge we are facing as a country is a significant one and it calls for innovative approaches, such as the use of military sites and vessels. These sites are undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK Government approach is in step with those of our northern European counterparts. A number of other European countries, such as Ireland, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, are looking at similar approaches and how they can house very large numbers of asylum seekers in ways that are of lower cost to the taxpayer and more sustainable while they work to find solutions to the migration crisis that the whole continent is experiencing.
We have not made a final decision to place a vessel in Birkenhead port. However, we have identified the port as a potentially viable location and are seeking to engage the local authority, the local NHS, police, other emergency services and other public agencies to help to inform a final decision. A multi-agency forum is being established, and will meet imminently, to assess the risks and identify mitigating actions. The forum, like others that we have established elsewhere in the country, will include representatives from national, regional and local public sector agencies and the Home Office. I hope that local stakeholders, including Wirral Council, will participate in the forum in the collaborative manner envisaged. It is certainly important for statutory officers, such as those of the council, to participate and fulfil their responsibilities.
I will use this opportunity to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions. He asked whether the vessel would be, in his words, a “prison ship” or a non-detained facility. The Home Office has no intention of using the vessel as a detained facility. The migrants who would be housed on it would be living in a non-detained manner, which means that they could leave the boat and spend time on the shore, whether that be in communities nearby in Birkenhead or further afield. That would be carefully managed by the Home Office to ensure the safety of the migrants, community cohesion and the impact on local town centres and high streets. There are ways in which we are able to do that, which we have learned throughout our experiences elsewhere in the country, such as at the non-detained facility that we operate at Napier in Kent.
The hon. Gentleman implied that this was an unorthodox approach. It is one that is being used both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe today. The Scottish Government have used vessels to house Ukrainian refugees, for example, in Leith in Edinburgh, over the last year or two. My understanding is that that experience has been broadly successful both for the refugees and for the local community. The local council has been extremely helpful in supporting those individuals and the Government have rightly provided resource to the council to meet the costs of doing that.
The barges and ferries that the UK Government are looking at have in many cases been used by British workers, such as those working on large construction sites, or oil and gas projects. Indeed, some are ferries that have been used for police and other staff at the Olympics or at COP26 in Glasgow. It would therefore be wrong to characterise them as inhumane or indecent. That is not the intention of the Government.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the important regeneration project at Wirral Waters. As a former Local Government Secretary, I am familiar with that, as there was—and I believe continues to be—a role for Homes England in its development. Nothing that the Government do should in any way imperil the success of that important regeneration project. We have already made that commitment to the parties we have spoken to and, in our future engagement with Wirral Council, we will do everything we can, should that project proceed, to protect the integrity of the Wirral Waters scheme.
The use of a vessel, whether it be at Birkenhead or in any other location in the UK, would only be for a very limited period. In most cases, we have proposed using these vessels for 18 months, after which they would be moved away and a different solution found.
The hon. Gentleman raised the understandable concern about the impact on his local authority and other local services in his area. All parts of the country face pressures on public services, but I understand that Birkenhead has particular challenges in respect of deprivation and we as national Government should take those challenges seriously. If we were to proceed with the project, we would provide funding to Wirral Council to recompense it for any work it does to support the project. We would also provide funding for the police in Merseyside to ensure they are able to support the safety of the migrants on the vessel, the security of the port and the safety of residents in neighbouring communities. We would also work with the local integrated care board to ensure that there is suitable healthcare provision.
What we are offering on a similar vessel in Portland in Dorset is a basic primary care facility located on or beside the vessel sufficient to meet the immediate needs of the migrants, and reduce pressures on local GPs and primary care providers, and some funding to the local healthcare authorities to ensure they are able to provide that and that there are minimal knock-on consequences for the wider healthcare economy.
We are also working with the UK Health Security Agency to work through some of the challenges the hon. Gentleman raised around communicable diseases, and to ensure that, when migrants come to vessels of this kind, they have been properly health screened in advance and offered vaccines, where appropriate, and that the correct checks and processes are in place to ensure diseases do not spread throughout the vessel or into the local community. Those are exactly the sorts of questions that we would now want to work through with Wirral Council, the hon. Gentleman and other local stakeholders.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the Floor of the House, and for raising understandable and important concerns on behalf of his constituents. I believe that the policy of using vessels and pursuing larger sites such as disused military bases is overwhelmingly in the national interest, but I understand that there will be very serious concerns in the local communities that are most immediately affected. It is right that he raises those concerns and that we work with him productively to address as many of them as possible. The Home Office will continue to engage with the key stakeholders in and around Birkenhead as we work through our proposals. I hope that he and I can forge a productive partnership if we choose to take this forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prime Minister
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Hodgson
Does the Prime Minister agree with his friend the Tees Valley Mayor that the National Audit Office must investigate the Teesworks affair? Will the Prime Minister share details of all conversations he has had on the subject with his former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), and the current Levelling Up Minister, given that they have all received donations from Ian Waller, one of the project backers?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Levelling Up Secretary has already announced an investigation into this matter. This is just the same old, same old—[Interruption.] It is the same old bunk from Labour. That is all we get. After years of neglect, it is the Conservatives who are delivering for Teesside.
[Official Report, 24 May 2023, Vol. 733, c. 281.]
Letter of correction from the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson).
The correct response should have been:
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Levelling Up Secretary is today announcing an investigation into this matter. This is just the same old, same old—[Interruption.] It is the same old bunk from Labour. That is all we get. After years of neglect, it is the Conservatives who are delivering for Teesside.
Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Thursday 25th May 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Energy Act 2023 View all Energy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 May 2023 - (25 May 2023)
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Could you please switch electronic devices to silent? Tea and coffee are not permitted during sittings; the only thing allowed is the water that is liberally sprinkled around the room.
I understand that the Government wish to move a motion to amend the programme order agreed by the Committee on 23 May, to cancel this afternoon’s sitting. Because this motion has not been agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee, it may proceed only if everyone is content. Does anyone object to the motion? No takers?
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of Tuesday 23 May be amended, in paragraph 1(b), by leaving out “and 2.00 pm”.—(Andrew Bowie.)
Clause 32
Enforcement of obligations of licence holders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
I rise to speak to clause 32. To ensure that the economic regulation framework operates as intended, the economic regulator requires appropriate powers of enforcement to ensure licence conditions are adhered to, and there must be appropriate redress for regulatory breaches. The clause gives effect to schedule 3, which enables the economic regulator to enforce the conditions of licences and other obligations on licence holders. These enforcement powers are equivalent to those available to the economic regulator in the enforcement of conditions of gas and electricity licences.
Schedule 3 sets out the procedural and other requirements relating to the conduct of licence enforcement in relation to the economic regulation of carbon dioxide transport and storage. It includes the procedure that Ofgem should follow when making an enforcement order; limits on the size of financial penalties that may be applied for breaches of licence conditions or other relevant requirements; the method by which penalties may be appealed; and, in the case of the non-payment of penalties, the use of civil proceedings to recover the penalty and any interest as a civil debt. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. Hopefully, the passage of the rest of the Bill will be pacific and friendly under your chairmanship and that of the other Chairmen. Members know how closely I was kept to order by the Chairman we had earlier this week, and I am sure you will do exactly the same, Dr Huq, although I do not intend to stray off today’s exciting business.
The clause and schedule are concerned with the enforcement of licence holders’ obligations. The schedule goes into greater detail about how that enforcement works. I do not have any particular objections to them, but I would like to know from the Minister what the process for a final order under the schedule will be. We talked in Committee previously about termination events, and the subject raises its head again this morning. As I understand it, a final order under this schedule may or may not precipitate a termination event. Is that right?
There is a process in the schedule for provisional orders and final orders. A final order is presumably where a termination event occurs. Perhaps the Minister can say something about whether there are any procedures beyond that final order for the persons to whom the order has been served. We will come to some of the reasons why orders may be made in the next clauses, but it is important to clarify at what point that final order is operational, what happens then and what happens up to a termination event. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification.
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Member for his questions. It is important to get the definition absolutely right. When Ofgem is satisfied that a regulated person has contravened or is contravening any relevant condition or requirement, it may impose a financial penalty or, in the words of the Bill, issue a “final order”. In terms of the appeal process, before imposing that financial penalty or issuing the final order, the economic regulator must publish a note stating its intentions and the relevant condition of requirements to be imposed. The notice should also specify the act or omissions that, in the economic regulator’s opinion, justify the penalty, and there should be a period of at least 21 days from publication in which objections can be made. The economic regulator must consider any objections made before imposing the penalty.
Schedule 3 provides for regulated persons to be able to appeal to the courts against the imposition of a penalty by Ofgem, the amount of the penalty or the timeline within which any penalty is required to be paid. An appeal must be made within 42 days of the penalty notice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 33
Making of false statements etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
To ensure that the Secretary of State and the economic regulator can secure the provision of information necessary to conduct their respective functions in relation to carbon dioxide transport and storage, the clause establishes an offence if a person, either knowingly or recklessly, provides false information. A criminal sanction ensures that there is suitable redress for the making of false statements and should act as a disincentive to doing so. This is important and necessary as falsifying information could conceal issues or concerns that would otherwise be material to the decision making of the economic regulator or Secretary of State. Without knowledge of such information, there could be less effective decisions and less effective protections for users of the networks.
Dr Whitehead
Yet again, the clause appears to be relatively straightforward, but I would like to unpack the meaning of “false statements”. The Minister has given a general outline of what it means, but as far as I can see it potentially concerns the making of false statements or declarations, or whatever, at all stages of the licensing process. Presumably, that could be where a false statement is made in order to receive a licence, and the false statement comes to light after the licence has been provided. In that case, I presume the licence would be terminated on the basis of the false statement. Alternatively, it could apply to false accounting or false statements during the carrying out of the licence. Does the clause concern false statements made at the commencement of a licence or the granting of a licence, or does it concern false statements made during the operation of the licence as well? What procedure does the Minister envisage for those false statements coming to light?
The clause states that a person who makes a statement that that person
“knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly makes any statement which is false in a material particular, is guilty of an offence”,
and is liable on summary conviction to a fine. Presumably the question of whether a false statement is sufficient for a process leading to a conviction is in the hands of the regulator. That is, if the regulator is worried about a false statement, it presumably has some discretion about the extent to which that false statement invalidates the process of the licence. Is that the Minister’s understanding? Is the process on a conveyor belt, as it were, such that a statement that appears to be false leads absolutely to a conviction? Or are there shades of grey about what a false statement is, how false that statement might be and how material that is to the continuation of the licence?
Andrew Bowie
Again, I thank the hon. Member for his questions. On his question about when a false statement might be made, it can be throughout the entire licence. On when an offence might be deemed to have occurred, it would be at the point that the statement was made. Schedule 2(10)(4) establishes that it is an offence to wilfully alter, suppress or destroy a document that the Competition and Markets Authority has required a person to produce as part of considering an appeal against a licence qualification decision by Ofgem. I think that what we seek to define as an offence and when we expect that offence to have been determined to have been made are quite clear.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Liability of officers of entities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
Part 1 establishes certain criminal offences in relation to the economic licensing of carbon dioxide transport and storage, where transport and storage activities can take place both onshore and offshore. Clause 34 clarifies that, where an offence is committed by a corporate entity with either the consent or collusion of an officer of the company, or as a result of neglect by an officer, that officer, as well as the company itself, is culpable of the offence. The clause defines a company officer as any director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in that capacity.
Clause 35 clarifies that proceedings under part 1 can be brought anywhere in the UK. That ensures that an offence arising by virtue of the provisions of this part that is committed in an offshore place may be prosecuted in the United Kingdom. Criminal proceedings in relation to offshore activities may be instituted only by the Secretary of State or by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Dr Whitehead
This is another fairly straightforward clause about criminal proceedings, but we ought to focus on the statement at the end of clause 35 about the definition of “offshore place”. Obviously, in the context of carbon capture and storage, there will be considerable concern about offshore places as well as onshore places, because presumably criminal offences can be committed during the transportation and sequestration of the carbon dioxide. As we know, those offshore places may be in repositories that are fairly far offshore but within the UK zone as far as, in principle, jurisdiction is concerned. However, as the Minister will know, there are different definitions of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Bill describes them as
“the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom”.
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Member for his pertinent and important question. For the purposes of the Bill and the industry we are discussing, the territorial sea is up to 12 nautical miles. The Gas Importation and Storage Zone (Designation of Area) Order 2009 sets that out, which is why we have taken the step of disapplying, for the purposes of the Bill, section 3 of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878. That section requires the consent of a principal Secretary of State, or a Governor in the case of the dominions and overseas territories, to institute proceedings for criminal offences within scope of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878. Disapplying section 3 enables proceedings for an offence that is alleged to have been committed in an offshore place to be instituted without the consent requirement. As set out in the 2009 order, offshore waters are defined as up to 12 nautical miles.
Dr Whitehead
That is a bit of a worrying definition, because it suggests that outside the 12-mile zone, the offence would not be prosecutable. A lot of carbon capture and storage installations are in the UK economic zone but outside the territorial zone, so there appears to be a bit of dissonance between what the Bill says about offences that may occur at any stage of proceedings, and these provisions, which, as the Minister says, cover the territorial 12-mile zone. Of course, the 1878 Act did not take any account of economic zones. Territorial waters were closely defined under that Act, but since then, we have moved considerably on what we might regard as territorial waters for the purpose of economic activity; that might not be the same as territorial waters as defined by the 12-mile limit. Is there a gap there that needs filling?
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. While I understand the concern, it is important to stress that the zone, which is up to 12 nautical miles from shore, is a continuation of the gas importation and storage zone as designated under the 2009 order. It would be outwith the scope of the Bill to change the 2009 definition, because that is the definition with which the industry has been working since then.
Dr Whitehead
That does not address the fact that carbon capture and storage, and the repositories for it, are way out to sea. Putting a pipe at the bottom of those repositories, and connecting it to an evacuated oil field or whatever, may mean that there is a platform at the head of the pipe on which offences could be committed. The Bill does not appear to get up to speed with where carbon capture and storage will take place, where the repositories will be, and what the jurisdiction of the UK will be in those circumstances. Is that not a problem? Does the definition require further amendment?
Andrew Bowie
It is important to stress that the definition in the Bill is not only a continuation of the definition in the 2009 order, but the same as that used for other gas activities in the North sea. It is important that we stick to the same definition.
Andrew Bowie
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Functions under the Enterprise Act 2002
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
Ofgem has the power, concurrently with the Competition and Markets Authority, to carry out market studies and make market investigation references in relation to the gas and electricity markets in Great Britain under part 4 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Other sectoral regulators have the same powers in relation to the sectors for which they are responsible. Under the Enterprise Act, the CMA and Ofgem may undertake market studies in relation to the gas and electricity markets in Great Britain, and may make market investigation references to the chair of the CMA for the constitution of a CMA group to conduct an in-depth market investigation of competition in the market or markets concerned. The purpose of those investigations is to examine the markets and implement appropriate remedies where competition problems are identified.
Clause 36 confers the same powers on Ofgem in its capacity as the economic regulator for carbon dioxide transport and storage. That will enable Ofgem to undertake market studies and make market investigation references to examine potential distortions that may give rise to restrictions in competition in relation to carbon dioxide transport and storage. As provided for in clause 38, neither the CMA nor Ofgem shall exercise functions under part 4 of the Enterprise Act in relation to any matter if such functions have been exercised in relation to that matter by the other. Clause 37 additionally provides for the economic regulator to exercise certain functions under the Competition Act 1998 concurrently with the CMA. Enabling the exercise of those Competition Act functions allows the economic regulator to deal with anti-competitive agreements or abuses of a dominant position in the carbon dioxide transport and storage sector.
To ensure that the powers are used efficiently, clause 38 requires the economic regulator and the CMA to consult each other before exercising the functions. Clause 38 is also clear that the power may be used only by either the economic regulator or the CMA in relation to a particular matter. If there is a question as to whether the economic regulator has concurrent powers under clauses 36 or 37 in relation to a particular case, this clause provides for the Secretary of State to make that determination.
Dr Whitehead
Try as I might, I cannot find much at fault with this chapter of the Bill. On the contrary, I actually think it is rather well drafted. I am happy to sit down, having said nothing about these clauses whatsoever, and allow business to proceed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 37 and 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Forward work programmes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
As these are significant clauses, I will speak for slightly longer than I have done thus far this morning. Clause 39 provides for the economic regulator to publish the transport and storage forward work programme before each financial year. This will generally contain a description and objectives of the relevant projects that the regulator intends to undertake. A forward work programme should include estimates of the expenditure that will be incurred in connection with the programme.
Before publishing the forward look programme for any year, the regulator must give notice containing a draft of the transport and storage forward programme, and must specify the time in which representations on the proposals may be made. The regulator must consider any representations or objections that are submitted.
Clause 40 provides for the economic regulator to publish a document setting out required information relating to the carbon capture, usage and storage strategy and policy statement. This document must include information about the strategy that the economic regulator intends to adopt to further the delivery of the policy outcomes in the statement, and how the strategy will be implemented. The clause also confirms the circumstances in which that duty does not apply, and the circumstances in which the economic regulator may choose not to include certain information in a forward work programme for a particular financial year. That includes circumstances in which the economic regulator does not think it is reasonably practicable to publish the document before the next required time, or circumstances in which the economic regulator has included that information in the forward work programme.
The Secretary of State may give notice to the economic regulator, Ofgem, that the statement’s designation will be or is expected to be withdrawn before the beginning of the year. That will exempt the economic regulator from the duty to publish information in relation to the CCUS strategy and policy statement.
Clause 41 provides for the economic regulator to make a report to the Secretary of State at the end of each financial year. This annual transport and storage report must include information on progress made during the year on the objectives in the forward work programme, and a summary of orders made and penalties imposed, and may cover any other matters that the Secretary of State may require. The economic regulator must also include an assessment of how it has contributed to the delivery of the policy outcomes set out in the CCUS strategy and policy statement, if such a statement has been designated.
If the economic regulator has failed to do anything that was set out in its forward work programme, it must explain why, and say how it intends to remedy that. The economic regulator must exclude, where necessary, any matters relating to the affairs of a particular individual or body of persons, in order to protect their interests.
The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each annual transport and storage report in each House of Parliament and share a copy of the report with Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. The report must also be published in a manner that the Secretary of State considers appropriate. I urge that clauses 39 to 41 stand part of the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
As the Minister says, these clauses are important in establishing reporting requirements relating to carbon capture and storage strategy and policy statements, and the requirement to report how the policy is going and what the problems are. It is important that we establish proper mechanisms for ensuring that the report is properly brought before Parliament. Given the interest of Members in the progress of CCUS, they may well want to debate the report in the House, and to have the Minister answer questions on it.
Clause 41(7) states:
“The Secretary of State must”—
it is nice that the provision has the word “must” in it—
“lay a copy of each annual T&S report before each House of Parliament”.
As the Minister will know, the phrase “lay before” has a lot of possible interpretations, just as “publication” does; we discussed the general question of publication in a previous sitting. Just laying a report before each House of Parliament has, potentially, a number of problems attached to it. Is it likely to be flagged up in any way that the report has been laid before Parliament? Is the onus on every Member of Parliament to find out whether that has happened? Do the Government intend to be proactive about laying reports before Parliament, and in offering opportunities to debate the report, or at least answer questions on it? Those are all extensions of the idea of laying a report before the House.
I do not want to say that the wording is inadequate, because it is the general wording on laying reports before the House, but the Minister will appreciate and understand that some legislation enters into greater detail on how a report is to come before Parliament. It would be helpful if the Minister gave his interpretation of the provision and said how he intends to transfer or convey the policy report from the regulator to the Floor of the House.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I will make only a few comments. I will not object to these clauses, which I realise are important, but I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. It is critical that we have confidence in proper parliamentary oversight, and in Parliament being able to hold the regulator and particularly the Secretary of State to account. I am slightly concerned that the clauses give the regulator too much power to decide what they report on, how they report and what information they bring forward. As the Minister described, it is up to the regulator to explain why they have not brought forward a statement, for example. We need more than that. It should not be at the whim of the regulator whether to bring forward a statement; if they do not bring one forward, they should say why. It is for the Secretary of State to make sure that these things happen, obviously with parliamentary oversight.
Subsection (2) says:
“That description must include the objectives of each relevant project.”
Clearly, we need a lot more than just the objectives; we need to know how the objectives are being met. I know that the Minister will not want to make the Bill too prescriptive about what goes in the report, but we need that to include, for example, details of the efficiency of the project. Cynics say that carbon capture does not capture enough of the emissions, whereas obviously the industry says that we can capture 95% of them. I want to see how efficient projects are, and how they contribute to meeting net zero.
There are concerns that carbon capture might lead to the burning of more fossil fuels, so we need to understand the level of extraction of fossil fuels, what the inputs and outputs are, the emissions from any extractions of fossil fuels, and where the fossil fuels come from, including whether they come from other countries; we need to know that when it comes to meeting that wider net zero objective. Those are the things that I would want set out, so that I could question the Secretary of State in Parliament on them and make sure that we have confidence in how these objectives will be met.
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test, and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for their questions.
I am very glad that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has spoken, because it gives me a chance to congratulate him on his team’s success last night, which probably staved off their relegation from the Scottish premier league. They are not quite making Europe, as some other teams did last night, but that is still quite good. On his questions about what should be in the annual report, that is already set out. It should be: progress on activities described in any forward work programme for that year; the extent to which activities proposed in the forward work programme for the previous year had not been delivered, and the reasons for that, as well as the proposals to remedy that; how the delivery of the programme’s functions have been contrary to any strategy and policy statement that has been designated; and any enforcement action pursued by the economic regulator.
Of course I share the concerns that both hon. Members expressed that any report laid before Parliament should be open, accessible and visible. Of course, there is precedent for this; reports are laid before Parliament by Government all the time. Of course, it is incumbent on Parliament to hold the Secretary of State to account once the report is laid before Parliament. It is in the gift of this Parliament to call any Secretary of State to the Floor of the House, as we have seen over the course of the past six years in particular, to explain in detail any reports that have been laid before Parliament and to take any questions from any Member of the House from any party. That process, which is well established in our Houses of Parliament, is the one by which we will proceed with this report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 40 and 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Transport and storage administration orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
I am happy to speak to clauses 42 to 49. Chapter 4 of the Bill provides for a special administration regime for licensed carbon dioxide transport and storage companies. In the unlikely event that a carbon dioxide transport and storage company becomes insolvent, the Secretary of State, or the economic regulator with the Secretary of State’s permission, may apply to the courts for the appointment of a special administrator. The objective of the administrator would be to ensure that services continue until it is unnecessary for the administration order to remain in force for that purpose.
Given the importance of carbon dioxide transport and storage networks to support carbon reduction from a range of emitters—many of which will be supported by Government—the importance of those networks in delivering net zero and the need to ensure that networks are maintained and decommissioned safely, in a company insolvency scenario the interests of creditors, which usually take priority in a normal administration, may not align with the public interest in keeping the network operating. The ability to apply a special administration regime in the event of a carbon dioxide transport and storage network company insolvency would enable services to continue for emitters connected to a network.
Clause 42 defines some of the relevant terms for this chapter that are necessary for the effective functioning of the legislation. It also requires that the relevant administrator must perform its functions as administrator to achieve the objectives set out in clause 43.
Clause 43 establishes that the objective of transport and storage administration is to secure that the activities authorised by the licence commence or continue in a manner that is efficient and economical, and that ensures the safety and security of the transport and storage network, or the part of the network to which the licence relates, until the company can be rescued as a going concern. The administrator also has the option to transfer all or parts of the undertaking to run as a going concern. Special administration is intended to act as an interim solution, rather than a long-term fix. If the ongoing operation of the transport and storage network is no longer viable in its form, the Secretary of State may wish the Government to take ownership and/or transfer the network assets to facilitate a restructuring or the safe decommissioning of the assets, using the statutory transfer scheme provided for in chapter 5 of this part of the Bill.
I turn to clause 44. Under the proposed special administration regime, if a carbon dioxide transport and storage company is running out of funds or likely to become insolvent, the Secretary of State, or the economic regulator with the consent of the Secretary of State, can apply to the High Court for a special administration order, which will allow a special administrator to be appointed. The Energy Act 2004 provides for special administration regimes in the energy sector. In order to establish the process and procedure for carbon dioxide transport and storage administration orders, the Bill extends the provisions of the Energy Act 2004 to transport and storage administration, with the appropriate modifications. As provided for by these amendments, the detailed procedural rules governing the establishment of a transport and storage administration will be set out in secondary legislation.
At present in the energy sector, section 159(3) of the Energy Act 2004 applies the power in section 411 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to make separate insolvency rules for each of the supply, network and smart meter communication device company special administration regimes. Clause 45 amends section 159(3) of the Energy Act 2004 to allow the Secretary of State additionally to make company insolvency rules for carbon dioxide transport and storage.
Clause 46 enables the Secretary of State to modify the conditions of a carbon dioxide transport and storage company’s economic licence while an administration order is in force. As the Secretary of State may provide financial support to a transport and storage company that is subject to an administration order to secure the objectives of the special administration regime, the power is intended to allow the Secretary of State to recover any financial support provided. Under that power, the Secretary of State may modify the licence to include conditions relating to the recovery of amounts owed to the Secretary of State in relation to financial assistance given while an administration order is in force, and the raising of funds for the purpose of meeting expenses arising in relation to the administration order. Before making any licence modifications, the Secretary of State must consult the economic regulator and any relevant carbon storage licensing authority.
The Enterprise Act 2004 conferred powers on the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to insolvency legislation. As the special administration regime for carbon dioxide transport and storage companies contains several provisions from the ordinary administration and insolvency regimes, the use of those powers in the Act may affect the special administration regime in the Bill. Clause 47 therefore extends the power of modification or application conferred on the Secretary of State in sections 248, 254 and 277 of the Enterprise Act to make such consequential amendments to chapter 4 as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with any other provision made under those sections of the Act. That will ensure that the special administration regime for carbon dioxide transport and storage is maintained as broader insolvency law evolves, and that it adopts the same approach taken in other recent special administration regime legislation. Not providing for such a power could have detrimental impacts on the operability of the special administration regime in the event of a relevant company’s insolvency.
Alan Brown
The Minister mentioned special admin-istration regime legislation. Given the Government’s review, I wondered how the special administration regime process worked for Bulb Energy, and what lessons had been learned? Has that had an impact on the legislation?
Andrew Bowie
I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that it has had an impact. Obviously, we continue to assess the impact of the special administration regime in the instance that he refers to. Lessons learned from that process and procedure feed directly into how we have thought about and developed the process for the Bill.
Clause 48 grants the Secretary of State the power by regulations to apply or make modifications to existing insolvency legislation in relation to this chapter of the Bill. The power will help to ensure that the special administration regime for carbon dioxide transport and storage networks fulfils its purpose to protect users of the network.
The power enables the Secretary of State to make modifications to insolvency legislation should, for example, practical experience highlight difficulties in the application of the regime, or should a change in general insolvency law necessitate a change to the special administration regime. The ability to do that is important given the expected long operational lifetime of a licensed carbon dioxide transport and storage network, and the potential for changes to broader insolvency law during this time.
Clause 49 defines relevant terms for interpreting chapter 4 of part 1 of the Bill. The terms refer to definitions in relevant existing primary legislation where it is appropriate. I commend clauses 42 to 49 to the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
We are now dealing with orders that follow from material we have considered previously in relation to false statements, the insolvency of companies and various other things. Clause 42 provides for orders to be made through the court that effectively place the licence holder into administration.
Under what circumstances can a transport storage and administration order be made? In view of what we have discussed, I assume that in addition to the insolvency of a company, a number of offences could lead to such an order. Normally, if a company cannot meet its obligations under the licence and therefore has effectively wound itself up, or seeks to do so, an order will be made through the courts to set up the regime that the Minister has described.
However, I am not entirely clear about the triggering point at which an order will be applied for and put before the court, who does that or the criteria under which the order is put into action. There are a number of circumstances in which one might concede that an order may be appropriate, but it might not have been applied for yet. The question that needs some clarification is when one might think that such an order is appropriate. Under what criteria may an order be offered before the court?
It will be pretty straightforward when a company has completely gone bust and someone has to rescue it, its assets or its operations. However, other circumstances under which an order may be required are less clear. Although this chapter provides that an order may lead to the rescue of the company as a going concern, other provisions—particularly clause 42(3)—show that an order may be used to transfer the operation of that company to another company. That is reasonably standard in provisions concerning the administration of a company, but it is not entirely clear how the treatment of the company will be decided. The court will make an order, but a decision will have to be made about whether the company should be salvaged or its assets transferred to another company.
We had a similar debate in the Bill Committee for the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022. We discussed what happens when a company that is developing a nuclear reactor goes bust during development or operation, and how we may have to deal with different circumstances surrounding the transfer of assets and ongoing activities depending on which stage the company is at. That will be more complicated during a production and operation phase than in a development phase.
It is important to be clear about the decision making process for what is done with each company, and it does not seem to me that the Bill gives the courts a view. I presume it is more likely that the Secretary of State or the regulator will say, “It looks like the assets need to be transferred to another company, rather than the company being salvaged, and that is how we will proceed.”
That leads to a further issue. If a decision is made to transfer the licence to another company, or to two or more companies, who decides which companies will take it over? Is that done on a tender, or is it done administratively by the appointment of a company to take over the licence arrangement? If the latter, who takes the administrative decision to appoint that company, and what are the criteria by which it is appointed? The provisions do not quite run to a fit and proper persons test, but they constitute a test on the suitability of a company to take over. Presumably, the scrutiny of that is in the purview of the Secretary of State, but it may be for the regulator or a combination of both.
Finally, I echo the point that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made in his intervention about the status of the special administration regime. Before I do that, it has been remiss of me not to congratulate him on the relative success of his team.
Dr Whitehead
I was about to say that. I can reveal that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was seen in the Library yesterday evening wearing a Kilmarnock shirt, which attested to his slight nervousness and fervour for his cause. I would not have worn a Southampton shirt in the Library, bearing in mind our ignominious exit from the premier league this year, but we will let that pass.
I want to mention the lessons learned from the special administration regime as it applied to Bulb. The Minister was not in post then, but I spent a lot of time tabling successive written questions to try to get some clarity and transparency about the process. I appreciate that under those circumstances, and quite possibly under these, considerable matters of commercial confidentiality and various other things might be involved in an order, including a transfer to another company, but I found the special administration regime as it applied to Bulb to be completely non-transparent.
We did not know what the Government’s liabilities were for the special administration regime; we did not know when it was likely to come to an end; we did not know how the decisions on the assets and arrangements related to Bulb were going—that is important, in terms of transfer to another company—and I got pretty frustrated trying to get any light into the proceedings. I would not like to think that that is how these arrangements might be conducted if it were necessary to transfer assets to another company. Indeed, the opacity of the Bulb proceedings led to an unsuccessful High Court challenge from several companies that felt they had been excluded from the transfer of liabilities and assets.
A clear intention that these proceedings will operate with the utmost transparency would help the progress of the Bill. The lesson that may be learned from Bulb is that it is generally not a good idea to undertake proceedings as if they were a state secret. On the contrary, disclosure and transparency, within the limits of commercial confidentiality, should be the watchword for such proceedings. When the Minister undoubtedly enlightens us with comments on my previous points, will he also reflect on how the regime might work best?
Andrew Bowie
Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions in order and, I hope, in enough detail to satisfy him and the Committee. The aim is for a special administration regime to be used only in the instance of an insolvency. As we all know, it allows for the protection of essential services in a company solvency scenario to ensure that those services continue.
It is worth reflecting on the fact that in the absence of such a regime, if a carbon dioxide transport and storage company were to become insolvent, an administrator or liquidator working under the standard objectives—they include achieving a better result for creditors than winding up—would not necessarily have cause to keep transport and storage services running, or to secure the ongoing safety and security of the network. That is why we believe an SAR is relevant, and it would only be used in the instance of insolvency.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 51 and 52 stand part.
Schedule 4.
Andrew Bowie
The regulator will have the power, under clause 17 of the Bill, to terminate a carbon dioxide transport and storage licence in certain circumstances. The circumstances in which the economic regulator can terminate a licence will be set out in the licence itself. Those circumstances could include where a licence holder has contravened or failed to comply with enforcement orders made by the regulator, or by the courts where the licence holder has ceased to carry on as a transport and storage business or has become insolvent.
If a licence is being terminated due to company insolvency, the economic regulator or the Secretary of State have the option, under the provisions of chapter 4, to apply to the courts for a special administration order, as we have just discussed. Where a licence is to be terminated for non-insolvency reasons, clause 50 allows the Secretary of State the option to make a statutory transfer scheme. A transfer scheme would allow the Secretary of State to transfer relevant property, rights or liabilities of a licence holder either to another appropriate body or to the Secretary of State himself.
The aim of the transfer scheme is to secure the ongoing operation of the network, so that emitters that are attached to a network can continue to have their carbon dioxide emissions transported and stored in an economic, safe and secure manner. Where the ongoing operation is no longer viable, a transfer scheme would enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the safety and security of the network is maintained. As set out in clause 50, the Secretary of State cannot make a transfer scheme without the consent of the current licence holder and the persons to whom the licence and associated property, rights or liabilities are proposed to be transferred.
Clause 51 states that, before making a statutory transfer scheme under clause 50, the Secretary of State must consult both the licence holder—the transferor—and the person to whom the licence and associated assets are to be transferred—the transferee. If the proposed transferee is not a public authority, the Secretary of State must consult the economic regulator and other listed public bodies before making such a scheme, as well as the relevant carbon storage licensing authority. That is intended to ensure that the proposed transferee is able to meet the requirements of the licensing authorities.
Clause 52 gives effect to schedule 4, which makes further provision about transfer schemes made under clause 50. Schedule 4 sets out the scope and obligations for any statutory transfer that is made by the Secretary of State in relation to a carbon dioxide transport and storage licensed company. The schedule sets out that a scheme is capable of transferring property, rights and liabilities, including those that would not otherwise be capable of being transferred or assigned.
The provisions of the schedule enable transfers that are affected by the scheme to take effect as if there were no requirement to obtain a person’s consent under the relevant contract, licence or permit that is being transferred, and the transfer will not create any liability due to the apparent contravention of restrictions on transfer that would ordinarily apply. The exception to that is that the transferor and transferee company would be required to provide consent to a transfer. The intention is that, in effect, a transfer scheme is capable of seamlessly parachuting the transferee in the place of the transferor.
On the day on which a scheme comes into force, which would be the date appointed in the scheme, the transferee or transferees must pay to the transferor, or the transferor must pay to the transferee or transferees, such sums as may be agreed.
Dr Whitehead
Yet again, there are some sound provisions in the Bill on transfer schemes and how they might work. We have had the debate about how transfer schemes might follow from orders and how that all works through. As I have said, it is important, however, to think about the circumstances under which transfer schemes might arise. Normally, as the Minister has outlined, transfer schemes will come about because the company was unable to fulfil its obligations as the licensee because it did not exist any more or was in such a dire financial situation that it could not be seen as properly carrying out its licence obligations.
As I have said, there are other circumstances under which a transfer scheme could arise. Clause 51 sets out the question of consultation on transfers and that the company that is subject to having its assets and activities transferred has to be consulted. Obviously, if the company no longer exists, it might be difficult to consult that company. Clause 50 goes further and states in subsection (5):
“The Secretary of State may not make a scheme without the consent of…the licence holder”.
It appears that the licence holder—the company having the assets transferred from it—has a veto on whether the transfer scheme goes through.
If a company exists in reasonable working order, but it has contravened its licence for reasons that are not wholly to do with insolvency, that company might be pretty aggrieved about the process of the transfer. Under those circumstances, it might simply refuse to co-operate. The clause appears to confirm, in the way it is written, the potential non-co-operation of that company.
I do not know whether there is anything elsewhere in the Bill that modifies this statement, but it does look rather stark as it stands:
“The Secretary of State may not make a scheme without the consent of”
that company. I do not know whether that needs to be looked at, or whether there are circumstances—say a company is unreasonably refusing to co-operate or unreasonably withholding consent—in which that can then be overcome. I frankly do not know whether those circumstances or arrangements exist.
Deep in the recesses of schedule 4 is paragraph 10, on compensation for third parties. It deals with circumstances in which an innocent third party, as it were, has had dealings with the licensee that has gone bust or otherwise failed to carry out the terms of its licence, and is financially or otherwise inconvenienced—or has a loss attached to it—as a result of a transfer scheme.
For those who are desperate to read it, paragraph 10(1) on page 269 says that, under those circumstances,
“the third party is entitled to compensation in respect of the extinguishment of the third party’s entitlement.”
That means that when the third party had a reasonable expectation that something was going to happen as part of the licence arrangement, which has been extinguished because of a transfer scheme, and, I assume, it has not proved possible for the entitlements and expectations to be transferred to, say, another company that will undertake the licence activities, with all the procedures we have discussed, that third party is entitled to compensation.
Further down in the schedule, though, we see where that compensation comes from. Paragraph 10(3) states:
“A liability to pay compensation under this paragraph falls on the Secretary of State.”
Does it not in any way fall on the recovery of some of the assets of the company that failed to carry out its licence? Are there procedures whereby that might be done first, perhaps by the Secretary of State? Or is it an absolute requirement that if compensation is required, that is the end of the involvement of the company that is losing its licence and the Secretary of State must find that compensation, howsoever that has been arrived at? I do not know the answer to that—I am not asking the Minister a trick question—but it seems to me that a company that is losing its licence should be expected to provide at least some of the compensation to which the third party is entitled.
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which again are pertinent and important to the Bill’s passage and implementation. I will answer them in turn.
When the Secretary of State considers making a transfer scheme, he may opt to do so when a network operator’s licence is expected to revoked. The purpose would be to transfer the ongoing operation of the transport and storage network to another operator. Pertinent to that is the hon. Gentleman’s question about the balance of power between the economic regulator and the Secretary of State. He asked whether they will both have the power to initiate a transfer scheme. Only the Secretary of State has the power to make a statutory transfer scheme under the provisions of chapter 5. Unless the Secretary of State is proposing to bring the assets within his own control, he must consult the economic regulator, Ofgem, when making a transfer scheme under the provisions of chapter 5.
On the question of whether the provisions go against the rights of a private company to which the assets belong, clause 50 confirms that the transfer scheme should take effect only with the consent of the transferor and the transferee. The consent of a licence holder to a statutory transfer scheme in the event of a licence termination, and the basis for the valuation of any compensation in the particular circumstances, is expected to be agreed to as part of the licence condition.
Dr Whitehead
With respect, that slightly misses the point about the question of the consent of the pre-existing licence holder. My question was: does the fact that the Bill says the Secretary of State
“may not make a scheme without the consent of”
the pre-existing licence holder mean that the pre-existing licence holder effectively has the whip hand as far as any subsequent scheme is concerned? In other words, if the licence holder simply says, “No, I’m not going to consent,” is that the end of the matter, or are do other things happen? I am not clear about that. If other things can happen, how can they?
Andrew Bowie
The hon. Gentleman asks another appropriate question. It is my understanding that, under the Bill, that would be the end of the matter. However, as he says, there is a more general point, and we will be working to add more detail to the procedure in future. I am happy to keep in touch with the hon. Gentleman as we do that over the next few months.
Andrew Bowie
I am terribly sorry; I missed the hon. Gentleman’s question about the schedule.
Dr Whitehead
I was getting so into the weeds that that is not surprising. My question concerns compensation for third parties and the extent to which the Secretary of State appears to be liable for that compensation, rather than at least attempting to involve the previous licence holder, who may have assets that could add to that compensation. Schedule 4 appears to provide that the previous licensee has no part in the proceedings. It states at paragraph 10(3):
“A liability to pay compensation under this paragraph falls on the Secretary of State.”
Are there circumstances in which the force of that particular statement may be mitigated? Alternatively, does the Minister regard it as good practice that, as far as the previous licensee is concerned, that is the end of it?
Andrew Bowie
As with my answer to the hon. Gentleman’s previous question, there are details that still need to be worked through. On his specific question, there will be mitigations in terms of the responsibility being wholly on the Secretary of State and in terms of whether the previous licence holder should be responsible for paying that compensation. I will keep in touch with the hon. Gentleman about the issue as we work up the specifics of the provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 51 and 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 53
Cooperation of storage licensing authority with economic regulator
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
Clause 53 inserts new sections into the Energy Act 2008 to provide for co-operation and information sharing between the economic regulator and a carbon dioxide storage licensing authority. As both an economic licence and a carbon storage licence will be required to operate a carbon storage site, the provision is intended to support the exercise of the functions of the economic regulator.
The clause ensures that a storage licensing authority must inform the economic regulator if it becomes aware of circumstances that have arisen, or are likely to arise, that may affect the activities carried out under the economic licence. In particular, it requires carbon storage licensing authorities to notify the economic regulator if a carbon storage licence, or a storage permit granted under the storage licence, that is held by a licensed transport and storage company may be terminated. That is important and necessary because a carbon storage licence or permit revocation would remove the right to operate a storage site.
Dr Whitehead
I think we have identified the relevant notifications on the termination event. The clause seems to be an admirable way to do it, particularly in respect of the co-operation with the economic regulator. I am happy for it to stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Amendments related to Part 1
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 55 stand part.
Andrew Bowie
Clause 54 gives effect to schedule 5, which makes amendments to other Acts that result from measures in part 1 of the Bill.
Schedule 5 makes consequential amendments to existing legislation to reflect the functions and powers conferred on Ofgem as the economic regulator of carbon dioxide transport and storage under part 1. They include amendments to the Utilities Act 2000 to make it clear that requirements in that Act relating to Ofgem’s work programming and annual reporting functions do not include the functions in relation to carbon dioxide transport and storage conferred on Ofgem by the Bill. That is necessary because the Bill makes separate provision for Ofgem to prepare a forward work programme and annual report on its transport and storage functions, as we discussed earlier.
The restriction on the disclosure of information in section 105 of the Utilities Act is amended to provide that the unauthorised disclosure of information obtained under the provisions of part 1 is a criminal offence, except where disclosure is for the purpose of facilitating the performance of Ofgem’s statutory functions under part 1. Amendments are also made to the Enterprise Act 2002 to reflect the market investigation powers being given to Ofgem in respect of the carbon dioxide transport and storage sector. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 is amended to ensure that appeals to the CMA in relation to licence modification decisions are heard by a specialist panel. That will ensure that people with the most appropriate expertise are involved in an appeal.
Clause 55 sets out the definitions of terms used in part 1, including include technical definitions relating to the geological storage of carbon dioxide, which are consistent with definitions used in the existing carbon storage licensing legislation.
Dr Whitehead
We come to the part of the Bill where we go through all the definitions and talk about the various amendments that have been made to other pieces of legislation. I always worry slightly about that, in as much as that without actually referring to those bits of legislation, we do not quite know whether someone has smuggled through the revocation of our rights under Magna Carta or whatever in a small amendment to a Bill far away. As far as I can see, everything is in order and the Bill does the right thing to tidy up all the relevant ends, so I am very happy for it to proceed.
Andrew Bowie
I confirm that we are in no way revoking the hon. Gentleman’s rights under Magna Carta.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Inshore Industry Fishing Crews: Visas
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered visa arrangements for inshore industry fishing crew.
This is a massive issue for myself and all of us here. We have a deep interest in this subject, and we come once again with a request. As the Minister knows, in January this year I had the opportunity to meet him and discuss this issue. I brought along my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and two reps from the fishing organisations in Northern Ireland, because we had some really deep concerns with where we are going and the importance of where we are about. I will outline the case for fishing and visas.
I thank all hon. Members for being here, and the Minister as well. He will know that when I put forward my case, I always try to do it in a constructive fashion and in a way that tries to get to a solution. I try to make everything I do solution focused and solution based; I know that other Members will try to do the same thing, but I want to make that point to start with.
The fishing industry in Northern Ireland supports about 1,400 jobs. It is the single biggest employer in the communities of Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie, in my constituency of Strangford. I represent the fishermen in Ardglass and Kilkeel, even though they are not my constituents; their MP does not attend here because of the parliamentary oath, so they ask me to be their representative on matters through the fish producer organisations. Each of those communities relies on its fishing industry, and their fishing industry relies on access to Northern Ireland’s inshore waters.
My case will be specific to Northern Ireland, unlike the request that I will make—I will tell the Minister my request. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I spoke this morning, and I think his request will be similar. I also discussed the matter with my friends and colleagues on the Government side before the debate, so I think that we will all ask for the same thing. We are not asking for anything really gigantic, but we are looking for a small, solution-based way forward that we feel may be just what we need to get us over the line.
Why are we in this crisis? Affordable food that is healthy and sustainable is a good thing for all of us. No one has enjoyed seeing the cost of the weekly shop rise, and it is to the benefit of all UK citizens to keep food costs low, but we cannot have everything. If that is to happen, the simple reality we must accept is that it will be harder to entice UK workers into food production. The fishing industry can testify to that, having seen its demographic change towards the increasing employment of foreign workers over the past 30 years.
I have been involved with the fishing sector all my political life, which is quite a long time. I started in 1985 as a councillor, representing the peninsula area where Portavogie is. All that time, my brother was involved in fishing, and many of my friends were as well. Over those 30-odd years, we have seen a greater dependence and reliance on foreign workers.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I anticipate that we will hear the same sort of thing from the Minister that we heard from him in the main Chamber today—namely, that we should be growing local labour. Does the hon. Gentleman hear from his own constituents, as I do, that that labour simply is not there, and that there are reasons why local young people, in particular, are not going into the fishing industry? That is basically because, for decades, they have been told that this is an industry in decline that has no future. We will not turn that perception around overnight when the problem that the boats have is in the here and now.
Jim Shannon
I thank my friend and colleague for that comment. I agree. I see it in Portavogie, in Ardglass and in Kilkeel. I will give an example: the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and the Irish Fish Producers Organisation put an advert out—when we were in the EU, by the way—to try to galvanise workers. Some 45 people inquired, five people responded to say that they would be interested in the job, and only one turned up. Whenever they did an advertisement across the whole EU, that was all the interest that there was, so there is an evidential base to prove the case that the right hon. Gentleman refers to.
I see in my constituency that people are not interested. Fishing is a hard job. It is one of the most dangerous jobs: more people are killed in the fishing sector than in many other sectors across the United Kingdom. People are going into other jobs, as it is a hard job. I remember going down into the bowels of one of those fishing boats in Portavogie one day. I said, “And where do you sleep?” The fisherman said, “In that wee place there.” We are born in a foetal position, and that is the way they sleep. It is impossible to know how anybody could ever sleep on a boat that is tossing about in the sea. The point is: it is a hard job.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the cramped living conditions on a fishing boat. When I was at school, I had a job painting fishing boats, so I was aware of the conditions. I have never been out in a fishing boat; if anybody watching this wants to offer me the opportunity, I will gladly take it up. He will have seen the conditions not just for the deck crew, the deck hands and the people we are talking about giving visas to; the skippers and the home-based crew of these vessels are in the same conditions.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He understands, as we all do, the practicalities, physical problems, obstructions and difficulties when it comes to fishing. We welcome foreign workers, and we need them. I gave the case of the two positions advertised right across Europe, when we were in the EU, and how many people inquired, how many said that they would take the job, and how many turned up. Foreign workers are now a vital and vibrant part of our fishing culture. They help us to supply the affordable food that every UK shopper wants to see. They do so much for us, but we still cannot offer them the opportunity to come to the UK on a visa that is a good fit for the important work that they do.
We have a problem, but as I said before, I am solution focused, and I believe that we have a solution. I will put it to the Minister and hope that he can give us some flexibility in the process, which we can then take back to our people. The problem is that Northern Ireland’s fishing fleet is penalised simply because of geography. Our position near the Isle of Man and the west coast of Scotland means that Northern Ireland vessels do not have the same easy access to waters outside the 12 miles enjoyed by fishing interests on the east coast of England, for example, or in Scotland. Consequently, our reliance on access to inshore waters means that employing crew on transit visas is no longer an option for fishing vessels in Northern Ireland, which is one of the problems.
We had the opportunity to meet the Minister in January this year, which was a chance to put forward a solution. I can probably add to the solution that we had at the time, because the two fish producers organisations in Northern Ireland, in connection and partnership with other fishing organisations in Scotland and indeed in England, put forward the suggestion that foreign workers could learn the English language before they come here, in a college in Sri Lanka that they are setting up. I will add another angle to that, but that is one of the solutions that the fishing organisations themselves are putting forward. It is practical, and it is costing them. They are not asking the Government for any money in that process; they feel that they can put it forward.
Our vessels are set to see their labour costs rise by up to 40% as they change from employing workers on transit visas to skilled visas—a cost that those in other parts of the country, by virtue of accident or geography, do not have to meet. That creates an unfairness where due to Home Office rules a fisherman fishing in one part of the United Kingdom is forced to pay up to 40% more for his crew than another fishing elsewhere in the UK. Northern Ireland’s fishing industry welcomes the pay protections the skilled visa system brings. Nobody decries that; nobody says, “Don’t do it”—we all accept and understand it. Indeed, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and I were talking about that in the voting lobby the night before last, because we understand that it is not an issue. The fishing sector is moving towards accepting it.
Northern Ireland’s fishing industry does not begrudge paying our international fishermen what they are worth, but it is clearly unfair that those who pay skilled-visa salaries can be undercut by those who do not, simply through accidents of geography. The Home Office will, of course, argue that the skilled visa system meets Northern Ireland’s fishermen’s needs. In some ways, particularly in how it improves the freedoms enjoyed by foreign fishermen when ashore, it is a very positive step forward. The situation is not, however, quite that simple.
The International Labour Organisation’s work in fishing convention, ILO 188, is an important piece of legislation, of which the UK is a signatory. It protects the welfare of fishermen. It rules, for example, that a fisherman must have his repatriation flight paid for at his employer’s expense, and that his employer should provide his food at sea. Northern Ireland’s vessel owners willingly do both those things already—they are happy to.
The legislation, however, is effectively legally mandating benefits in kind that push the cost of employment up in ways that were not considered when skilled visas and their corresponding salary levels were devised. There needs to be a better understanding of that. Other employers who utilise skilled visas do not have to bear those costs, but fishing vessels do. Northern Ireland’s fishermen have asked for the policy to be applied in a fair, considered and even-handed way. We do not ask for anything that is not achievable or possible. That is why I look to the Minister for a better understanding and a positive response.
I ask the Minister and every MP in the Chamber to put themselves in the position of a Northern Ireland skipper for a moment. Imagine being in the southern Irish sea, wanting to access fishing grounds inside 12 miles of the shore but being unable to because there are transit visa crew onboard. Mr Vickers, imagine that you have tried to recruit skilled visa crew members, but those capable of passing the English-language requirement do not yet exist in sufficient numbers to make that option viable. Looking out of the wheelhouse window of the boat as it is tossed about on the sea, you see a French vessel fishing happily in the area that you are not allowed to work in. It niggles a bit when we are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and our fishermen do not have the same freedoms as those from the rest of Europe.
The French vessel is allowed to work in UK waters because of the Brexit deal. I understand that—I understand how it works and where it will eventually lead to. The French vessel can also carry an international crew on the same transit visas, yet UK law affords it the exemptions that Northern Ireland fishermen are refused. That is a true story; I have not made it up—this is not an example without an evidential base. I suspect, in all honesty, that the Minister accepts that.
Northern Ireland’s fishermen have had to watch EU vessels employ foreign workers in UK territorial waters. They are there without any visa scrutiny whatever, while Northern Ireland fishermen are forced to remain outside those waters. Can the Home Office please put itself in their position, and explain where the morality and the fairness is? For the life of me, I cannot understand it at all. Can the Home Office appreciate the ridiculousness of a situation where it is easier for a British fishing business to employ foreign workers in UK waters if it buys into a French or Irish-registered vessel, rather than one registered in the UK? That anomaly is grossly unfair, and it grieves us all; there is not one Member who represents the fishing sector who does not think that.
It is unfortunate that the Home Secretary denied the request of the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance; the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and myself were also talking about the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance the other night. What it has put forward is a feasible and workable option, and one that should be looked at. The Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance has asked for the full implementation of section 43 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and for more time.
As transit visa crews are replaced with skilled visa crews in job lots, some fishing boats will now be expected to go to sea with whole crews joining vessels they have never set foot on before, to work as part of teams that have never met each other before. That poses the question of how practical that is. Professional mariners baulk at the very idea of this. They have issues with the safety, practicality and physical working of it. Fishing is already the UK’s most dangerous profession. I said that at the beginning because it is a fact; I am not making it up. It is not the fault of the migrant fisherman that he has not been granted the time to safely integrate with his vessel and crew mates, yet he is the one carrying the risk.
In response to the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance, the Home Secretary raised concerns about the welfare of fishermen. If welfare is one of her considerations, I ask her not to make an already dangerous job more so. I ask her to reconsider on the grounds of safety, with a short delay to the full implementation of section 43 so that crews on transit visas may be replaced with crew on skilled visas as part of the staggered, safe transition.
I said at the beginning that I want to be constructive and give the facts of the case for us in Northern Ireland, but I also want to lay out where I think we can move forward. I am pretty sure that the opinions of everyone else here today are similar. Our Northern Ireland fishing vessel operator can see his colleagues in the North sea targeting the same species, yet, because of a line on a chart, his business has 40% higher labour costs. He sees an EU boat fishing inside the UK’s territorial waters with a transit visa crew, yet his British boat, with the same category of crew, is not allowed there. Even if all his crew had skilled worker visas and he was allowed access to those waters, the French boat would still undercut his labour costs.
This is not about cheap labour, but I want to illustrate that point. Northern Ireland’s fishermen welcome the wage protections that the skilled visas bring. Indeed, that will drive up wages for all our fishermen, local and foreign alike, which is good for the sector because at least it makes it more attractive from a financial wage point of view. For many of Northern Ireland’s boats there is no great disparity in earnings based on whether someone comes come from Kilkeel or Colombo, or Accra or Ardglass, but the same rules should apply to all. The skilled visa system links skills and education in a way that is not always reflected in real life. When we see what is put forward, it is very hard to understand why—I say this with respect to the Minister—he is not reaching out and saying, “Let’s get that in place as soon as we can.”
Most of the international fishermen employed by the UK industry have little by way of formal schooling, but they are expert in their profession. Sometimes people do not have an education, but they have the skills and the ability to work on a boat. That is the frustration that we have here: people who can do the job, but do not have the full grasp of the English language that they need to have. To prevent them from helping our own industry simply because they cannot pass the reading and writing elements of an academic English exam, which reportedly sits somewhere between GCSE and A-level in difficulty, is perhaps contrary to the bigger picture of ensuring our food security.
The Home Secretary has kindly offered a package of help designed to aid the transition to skilled visas. That is welcome, but if I could push that offer of help just a little further, this is the crux of what I would ask for: to recognise that the highly skilled people from around the world who are already part of our fishing communities do not have to have the academic background that enables them to pass B1 level reading and writing. After all, fishing is something we learn in a boat, not in a classroom. Providing that formal academic training to our existing foreign fishermen, who are already working full time, will take months and cost individual fishing businesses tens of thousands in lost revenue because they remain unable to access inshore waters in the interim.
Assumptions are dangerous, and it is simply incorrect to assume that there is, anywhere in the world, a pool of eligible B1-standard fishermen who want to work in the UK. There is not, and that is the nub of the problem. The Home Office is asking the fishing industry to focus its recruitment efforts on a group of people who do not exist. The good news, and there is good news—I always try to bring good news, because that is my nature—is that the Home Office can do something practical to help.
Employers are allowed to pay skilled workers whose jobs are on the shortage occupation list a lower salary than would be the case if the jobs were not in shortage. Perhaps, for shortage occupations, the reading and writing elements of the English test could be reduced by one level from B1. That is my request. It is a practical solution to where we are, and it is a solution that the fishing sector and every MP here will put forward. The fishing sector will work alongside; if a partnership is needed to make this work, the Minister and the Government will have a partnership. The reading and writing could be reduced by one level from B1 for the first year of a person’s stay only; after that, they would be required to pass a B1 exam to remain—which is where we are now —thereby protecting the integrity of the skilled visa system. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will speak on that shortly and reiterate my point.
That little change could help the fishing industry retain many of the crew it already has by enabling them to successfully make the transition to skilled visas in a matter of weeks—almost right away—thereby minimising the economic cost of losing access to prime inshore grounds and minimising the accidents stemming from the employment of inexperienced and unfamiliar crew. I tell the Minister, with genuine respect, that here we have a solution that can work. Others will repeat that, and they will repeat it because it is right.
Fishing is an irregular occupation. It is unsurprising that it does not fit neatly into any of the current visa options—I understand that. Instead of trying to force square pegs into round holes, perhaps it would be better to begin a dialogue between the fishing industry and the Home Office as to how provision can be made within the framework of the skilled visa system to recognise those irregularities and help to make a better fit. We have put forward a solution, and I am confident that those who speak today will be united, because all of us represent fishermen who want the same thing.
We have great potential. After Brexit, we as a fishing sector were confident that we could move forward. I know that the Minister and the Government are committed to that, but we need some practical help with the technicalities of the system to make it happen. I have made the case, and I look forward to others’ contributions.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In his —if I may say so politely—lengthy speech, he has probably covered everything that every one of us will end up asking for. I agree almost 100% with his requests of the Minister and his suggestions for how we can help the fishing sector and turn on their head some of the long-standing and difficult issues for the industry.
Mr Vickers, if you were to come to south Devon—you are of course always welcome—you would be greeted by three extraordinary fishing towns of great variety: Brixham, Salcombe and Dartmouth. Brixham is the most valuable fishing port in England, as we all know— I spend half my time in this place talking about it—but in Dartmouth and Salcombe there is a large contingent of inshore fishermen, whether they are crabbers or day fishermen, who are really impacted by this issue. Indeed, the entire town of Brixham, which I think is now on its third year of record sales—a point that is often overlooked in the mainstream media—is absolutely dependent on visa arrangements. It is my pleasure as their representative to stand up in this place and talk about how we can do more for the fishing sector.
As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, fishing is all too often an afterthought. People do not fully consider the fact that fishing is a massive lever with which we can help to level up in our coastal communities and create good, well-paying, highly skilled jobs that allow our coastal communities to flourish. We need only read Professor Chris Whitty’s report on how to level up in coastal communities to see that there is a huge opportunity for us to do more for our fishing industry, and that starts by changing our attitudes. It also starts by changing our habits; just eating more fish—more seafood—would help us to grow the UK’s domestic market. That is something that a great people in my constituency, such as chef Mitch Tonks, are trying to do. He is leading a campaign to support the fishing sector and to talk about the fishing community and the great sources of food we have on our coastline.
I come back to the point about changing attitudes, because if we want to attract people into the fishing community, that is not going to be done by handing out visas to foreign workers; we have to change the approach. I welcome the Government’s measure as a temporary measure, because I hope that, in the in-between period, we can put more into training.
On visa arrangements, it is absolutely welcome that the Government have reduced the cost of the visas and reduced the salary threshold, but I come to the point the hon. Member for Strangford made about the B1 English language requirement: if we are trying to fill a gap right now because there are not enough workers in the fishing community, how on earth do we hope to achieve that when the B1 language course is so complicated and, in many instances, lengthy?
Mr Carmichael
For the sake of argument, let us say that we do manage to train people to the B1 level in order to meet the visa requirements. We have heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the hard, difficult and occasionally dangerous work undertaken on a fishing boat. Is it just possible that people who have achieved the B1 standard of English might then want to take that skill and qualification and do a job that is perhaps more suited to somebody with that level of language skill?
Anthony Mangnall
That is quite possible but, again, what is the purpose of this debate? What are we trying to do here? We are trying to shore up support for the fishing community; we are trying to ensure that it continues to thrive. We have come up with a solution, but there is just one small roadblock, and the Minister just needs to move it.
The suggestion regarding the B2 level was well made, but I will just make this point. An organisation called Crew Services operates in the United Kingdom. It has on its books 325 non-UK crew who are working in the UK at the moment. Of them, only six have met the B1 English language requirement. That shows, in a very neat way, the difficulty we have with being able to bring in people in the helpful manner the Minister has brought forward. There are limitations because of what we are asking at the moment; it is going to be very difficult.
A lot has been said about training, and I realise that training is a lengthy process. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) that if he wishes to go out on a vessel, he is welcome at any time to come down to south Devon to do so. I went out two years ago on a trawler for 36 hours—it was probably the last time I did an honest day’s work—and it was incredibly hard work. One of the things explained to me was the skill that goes into it and the dangers that come with it. I would like to say that I was thrown around that vessel by stormy seas, but unfortunately it was as calm as anything. However, for 36 hours, doing two hours on and two hours off, I saw the industry at work, how hard people work and the benefits of the sector.
In that instance, the young people working on the boat had trained locally, in the south-west. They were using local businesses to try to get into the sector, and that was working well. However, we clearly need to do more on this issue, so I would just make the point that, when the visa changes are implemented—that is very welcome —we should also take in hand training opportunities. In my own area of Totnes and south Devon, South Devon College has set up a training school, which is at the Noss on Dart site. It is now launching its own fisher apprenticeship scheme. It has had good attendance so far. There are a few minor niggles at the moment in how that programme is running, but more and more people are getting into it, and we in this place have to encourage them.
I absolutely declare my interest: we now need a Fishing Minister—a dedicated, stand-alone Minister—to be able to do all of this. I am sure that it is within the good sense of this Minister to be able to advocate that to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I congratulate the Government on the two very positive steps they have taken, on the reduction of costs and the reduction of the salary threshold. Will they please look at the language issue again? That is what the industry in my area is calling for.
I will not steal from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan, but can we also look at the processing sector? A large number of businesses in my constituency are exporting around the world. They rely heavily not only on the fishing community but on there being visas to allow people to work in their sector. However, that will undoubtedly come up further on in the debate.
I am very proud to represent the fishing community. We have some small asks that can make things easier and better, and where we can deregulate and make things more efficient. These steps will not cost the Government much, but they will be applauded by the industry. I hope the Minister has heard my speech and that of the hon. Member for Strangford, and can implement our requests.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Vickers. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing time for a debate on this important issue.
I represent Orkney and Shetland. Shetland’s local economy is one third fishing-dependent, and that goes through everything. When I say fishing, I am including aquaculture to get to the one third, although a lot of the skills are transferrable in any event. We have the full range: we have small, one-person, inshore boats, right the way through to the largest pelagic trawlers anywhere in Scotland—apart, obviously, from Banff and Buchan, where there are ones that are just as big. I do not think we want to get into a debate about the relative size of the pelagic trawlers; that is not what we are here for.
I have to say that I am just a bit weary with this. We have been going round this course for at least 10 years —possibly more—and we have gone from patch here to fitch there. We have had a reliance on transit visas, which was—bluntly—an abuse of the transit visas system, but it was the only way that fishing boats could get access to the crew they needed. We can absolutely understand why that happened, but it left a lot of people who were coming here as crew vulnerable to a measure of exploitation, and there were stories around the use of transit visas that did no credit to some in the fishing industry. We need a system that actually respects the rights of those who come here and contribute to our industry, and who keep our coastal and island communities growing and thriving, and that respects the rights and entitlements they have as workers in our economy, rather than just pushing them sidewards into the shadows.
The fishing industry has been promised a great deal by some in politics in recent years. Without rehearsing old arguments, it is fair to say that many in the industry feel that the promises made to them have not been honoured or delivered. It is certainly true beyond any measure of doubt that the deal done in 2020 by the former Prime Minister but one, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), did not meet the promises that had been made; indeed, in terms of much of the detail, it was greatly deficient. The trade and co-operation agreement has not delivered the opportunities that were promised, but the industry is nothing if not pragmatic, and it is working towards the renegotiation of that agreement. In the meantime, it would be nice to think that the people who promised the earth but did not deliver at the time would not just keep sticking the boot in while the industry is on the ground.
David Duguid
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the outcome of the TCA did not meet all expectations, but does he agree that our power at the negotiating table as an independent coastal state—this includes Ministers and officials in Scotland who take part in these negotiations—has become stronger and that our catching opportunities have increased? However, if we cannot get the people on the boats to catch the fish or to process them in the processors, that situation could potentially be at risk.
Mr Carmichael
There are constitutional issues that the hon. Gentleman and I are part of the debate on and have been for some years. In microcosm, the danger the fishing industry faces is thinking that the solution to everything is dependent on where decision making is exercised. Personally, I think it is more important to discuss the principles and policies underpinning decisions, rather than where those decisions are made. A bad decision in Brussels is just as bad as a bad decision in London or Edinburgh—that is probably as far as it is sensible to take that. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that we could have the greatest opportunities and the most magnificent quota and total allowable catches imaginable, but that is absolutely no use if the crew cannot be found to put the boats to sea.
In my constituency and others, and I suspect in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, that is the situation many skippers face. If the local labour were available, I have absolutely no doubt that skippers would use it in a heartbeat. Every fisherman I speak to tells me exactly the same thing. They say they want a thriving local industry, and they do not want to rely on people coming in on foreign visas, but they also live in a competitive market. The fishermen in my constituency are competing for people who could be recruited into the offshore oil and gas industry, aquaculture or the deep-sea merchant marine.
Those fishermen have to compete not just with those industries but with decades of teachers, careers advisers and commentators telling people that the fishing industry has no future, that it is in decline and that no one would want to go into it. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the local fleet in Shetland, there are fantastic examples of young skippers taking on big commitments. New boats are coming into the industry, in a genuine and visible commitment to the future of the industry. Those skippers just need a hand up. They are not looking for help—for a subsidy or a grant. They just want to be able to go to sea, to make money to provide for their family and to keep an industry going that is critical to the future of our communities.
The history of this issue bears a bit of repeating. We pushed water up the hill for years with the members of the Migration Advisory Committee. We reasoned with them. Eventually we brought them in and beat them up in a Committee Room in the Palace and they accepted that, yes, the job of a deckhand is a skilled occupation. That is how we made the progress that got us to the place where that job could be put on the shortage occupation list.
That brings us to the English language requirement. The concession that has been made is absolutely meaningless if we insist that the crew who are to be employed under it are capable of achieving that level of English language qualification. As I said to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), people who have that academic ability will probably not be particularly suited to, or want to work in, a fishing boat. For the medium to longer term, it is difficult to see how there is any meaning to that concession whatever. If we were to get the fishing industry to fund training for people to get to that level, I strongly suspect that they would not be there for the longer term. All we would be doing would be training people for jobs that they would not ultimately take up.
At its root, the problem with the English language qualification is a fundamental lack of understanding in the migration system, and in the Home Office in particular, which seems to equate skill with academic ability. That is a particularly dangerous and—dare I say it?—fairly middle-class view of the world. A lot of people have highly skilled occupations, but have never actually achieved a great deal in terms of academic qualifications, because that has not been the direction in which they have wanted to go. I think what they do is perfectly legitimate. I respect what they do, and what fishermen are capable of doing. I sure as goodness would not go and do it, because it is hard, difficult, dangerous work. In the same way that I would hope that they might respect what I can do with my professional background, I respect what they can do with theirs. It does not always come down to what someone has by way of academic qualifications. The hon. Member for Strangford has already said what needs to be done. That tweak is all we really need; the problem for the Minister would then simply go away.
I want to offer two examples of what the situation means for fishing boat crews in my constituency. The first example is a family with two vivier crab boats. Like everyone I will talk about, the family have done everything that every Minister in every Government would ever tell them to do. They have worked hard, they have saved, they have borrowed to invest and they have grown their business to provide for the family. The father tells me that he does the work because he wants to have a business that he can hand on to his eldest son. He tells me, quite candidly, that he no longer knows whether he will be able to do that. He was fishing with fixed gear, within the 12-mile limit, until the day that his ability to do so was withdrawn. The gear is still sitting there, weeks down the line, because he cannot get the crew to go out and shift it.
When the Minister responds, perhaps he can explain this point. The waters to be included around Orkney include uninhabited islands such as Rona, Sulisker and Sule Skerry. That takes in waters that, for an inshore fisherman, are about 90 miles from the Orkney mainland. I presume that it was a deliberate decision on the part of the Minister to include Rona, Sulisker and Sule Skerry, so will he explain his reasoning? It does not make any sense to me. The hon. Member for Strangford spoke about safety. When boats are out fishing, they will often dodge into those areas to get a bit of shelter in bad weather. If fishermen cannot take their boats there because they are fishing outside the 12-mile limit, they will be exposed to even greater danger.
That brings us back to one of the fundamental problems, with which we have been dealing for years: fishermen are forced to fish not where the fishing opportunities exist, but where their visa requirements allow them to. That, again, has to be a case of the tail wagging the dog.
The other example I offer is a Shetland fisherman who bought his boat some years ago. The boat and the quota together cost him around £1.4 million. He still owes the bank just south of £700,000—the figure was about £680,000 when I last spoke to him about it. He has always fished with a foreign crew within the 12-mile limit—well, perhaps not always, but certainly in recent times, because he was able to do so. He did so because, that close into shore, he could be certain that he was only catching haddock. If he has to go outside the 12-mile limit, he will be catching a much more mixed fishery—haddock, cod, ling and saithe. He is not allowed to catch cod, ling and saithe, because he only has quota for haddock. Because of the discard rule, he is also not allowed to get rid of them. That is the vicious circle that leaves fishermen having to tie their boats up at the shore.
The basic truth is that if there is no crew, there is no fishing, and if there is no fishing, there is no ability to service the debt. Fishers will doubtless go out of business, and that income will be lost to the community as those families will no longer be able to make money for themselves. If the boats do not go out to sea, no fish will come into the factories to be processed. In that way, the effect of this decision ripples out through every fishing community in this country.
We are asking for a simple tweak to a fairly small piece of legislation that will not make a massive difference to the number of people coming here. The Minister spoke today about the desirability of offering visas to people who come here on a route that might eventually lead to indefinite leave to remain. He knows as well as I do that if that route is taken, there are other opportunities for the English language requirement to be tested and established.
The people who come here to fish in my constituency are not coming to stay, because their families are still at home in the Philippines or Ghana. They come here to fish for six, eight or 10 months at a time, and then they want to go home. Why would they not? That is where their family are. They come here and make good money working in an industry that looks after them and offers them opportunities. It is good for them and good for us. Why can the Home Office not just get out the way and let them do it?
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate.
It is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I wanted to intervene so many times during his speech, but I did not want to interrupt his flow. He made lots of very good points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). We have not heard from the SNP spokesperson yet, but I am sure that we will broadly agree on most of what we say today. We all represent fishing communities, which, as we have heard, are as wild and varied in their needs and demands as the weather conditions they often face.
I thank the Minister and his officials for meeting me earlier this week to discuss this matter in some detail. It was probably one of the longest meetings with a Minister and his officials that I have ever had, but the fact is that we barely scratched the surface, because there is so much nuance in this industry and the devil is very much in the detail.
This is not a binary issue. It is not a question of whether immigration is bad or good. It is not even a question of whether immigration is legal or illegal. Nobody in this Chamber is advocating doing anything that would be against the immigration rules or classed as illegal immigration. It is right that the UK Government take every reasonable step to stop illegal immigration, stop the small boats coming across the English channel, and stop the disgraceful practice of illegal people smugglers putting vulnerable people at risk and taking advantage of them.
We are talking about a different kind of small boat, although sometimes they are not all that small. These fishing boats operate out of some of the most remote, sparsely populated areas, where unemployment rates are often so low as to be effectively zero. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, in a lot of these areas—particularly in Orkney and Shetland, and in Banff and Buchan, which I represent—there is huge competition from other industries. Traditionally, the competition comes from the oil and gas industry, but given the energy transition, the renewable energy sector is rapidly becoming a competitor, too.
I think we all agree that the system of using transit visas, which technically allow fishermen to enter the country on the basis that they will transit outside a 12 nautical mile limit to work, is not fit for the purposes described today. I have long said that a points-based immigration system, appropriately applied, could replace that system. It is on that basis that I welcome this week’s announcement by the Home Office that share fishermen, trawler skippers and experienced deckhands on large fishing vessels are to be included on the shortage occupation list. Inclusion on the list means that jobs qualify at the 20% lower salary threshold of £20,960 instead of £26,200. However, as has been mentioned, the salaries being paid to those guys are fairly reasonable, and although that measure may help some people start out in the sector, it is not the main obstruction.
Being on the shortage occupation list also means that applicants will pay lower fees of £479 instead of £625 for a three-year visa. That is also welcome. Yet the broader English-language requirements of the skilled worker route will still apply despite the jobs being on the shortage occupation list. It will come as no surprise that, like other hon. Members, I will make that one of my main points.
I welcome the addition of experienced deckhands to the skilled worker route back in 2021. As other hon. Members have said, that followed long discussions between hon. Members such as those of us here representing our constituencies today and the Migration Advisory Committee. I have been doing this for six years; others have been doing it for longer. Through all that, there has been a genuine desire from us as representatives of our coastal communities and from the fishing industry to work constructively and in partnership with Government to come together and find the solutions that we know are there.
Anthony Mangnall
Of course, the debate is about the arrangements, but there is also the broader point about where we can reduce bureaucracy. We have skirted around the point about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and health certificates. There is a series of measures by which we are inadvertently blocking people from getting back into fishing or getting into it. If we introduce the requirement for health certificates, that will have an implication for the visa arrangements of those who come over.
David Duguid
My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. That impacts the owners of smaller boats more than those of bigger ones, because bigger boats have bigger crews. On a bigger boat, if someone does not receive their health certificate, there are other crew members who can fill the gap. With a one or two-man crew, that becomes more of an issue. My hon. Friend is right to point that out.
Let me return to my point about collaboration between the industry, us elected representatives and the Government. We should take as much advantage as possible of that desire to collaborate and act constructively in partnership and dialogue. As I found in my meeting with the Minister earlier in the week, a face-to-face discussion is so much more productive than just the odd email going back and forth.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Member forces me to intervene with his second reference to his meeting with the Minister. I am delighted that he got that meeting. On 20 April, when the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) was answering my urgent question, which the Immigration Minister managed to dodge, she said:
“The right hon. Gentleman asks to meet the Home Secretary or the Immigration Minister. I can put that request to the Minister this afternoon, and I hope that it will be agreed.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 370.]
It would appear that her hopes were not well founded. What did the hon. Member do to get a meeting that I cannot?
David Duguid
I am not sure I want to give away any trade secrets, but, as I am sure the Minister will attest to in his response, a lot of ear-bending was involved—I am sure there has been a lot of that from all of us.
As hon. Members have mentioned, and as the industry and communities themselves recognise, we need to encourage more local people—particularly young people —in our coastal communities to consider a career in fishing. I think it is fair to say—I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes earlier and he agreed, and I am sure the situation is the same in Orkney and Shetland and probably in Strangford—that we are seeing the green shoots of people starting to think about it, but they are doing so in such small numbers. This is a generational issue. It will not happen overnight.
Mr Carmichael
As I said, we have young skippers taking on new boats in Shetland. If their experience is not financially favourable as a consequence of decisions like this, what will that do for the green shoots that the hon. Gentleman and I can see at the moment?
David Duguid
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that point. Not only is the industry actively taking steps to encourage people into a fishing career, but we have local education facilities such as the North East Scotland College in my constituency—that includes the Scottish Maritime Academy, which people attend from all over Scotland—and efforts by organisations such as the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, to name just a few of the organisations that are actively trying to make this happen. As Members have mentioned, there is so much we can do with automation, particularly in the processing sector, which I will come to later.
In its paper, which was mentioned earlier, the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance, in the process of asking for a 24-month period to make all this stuff happen, went as far as to make a commitment on behalf of the industry that within 12 months, up to 100 crew would be operating under a skilled worker visa; within 18 months, for vessels operating some or all of their time within the 12 nautical mile limit, no new crew contracts would be entered under the transit visa route; and within 24 months, all non-UK crew working on vessels operating to an extent within the 12 nautical mile limit would be employed under a skilled worker visa. When I first read that, I thought, “Wow, really?” That is an ambitious target and a huge commitment on behalf of the industry.
As I said, this is a generational issue. Coastal communities around Scotland suffer from depopulation and loss of services—by the way, that is something that the Scottish Government and local councils need to look at, too—and from very low, effectively zero unemployment. The offshore catching sector, as well as those fishing inshore, can apply for the relevant skilled labour through the skilled worker route, but the main stumbling block is the standard required in the written English language test. As others have said, we are not denying that there is a need for a minimum level of English, for health and safety reasons and to avoid exposure to abuse, but the industry has proposed reducing the standard from B1. The hon. Member for Strangford suggested that too, and I have heard requests to reduce the level required to A2.
I went to school with people who went to sea. They left school at the age of 16 and they are now some of the most successful businessmen I know locally. They are very successful, and I have great respect for the work they have done to build up those businesses, but, by virtue of leaving school at 16, they did not achieve the English language test standard we are asking for from our non- native-English-speaking crew members. Many of them have been working on these vessels for many years, but they have not been required to pass the test until now. Again, we are not saying, “Let’s not have English language testing.” The industry is just asking for it to be applied at a sensible and reasonable level.
I heard the response by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and I think I agree that the English language requirement is reasonable for those coming into the country on a route to settlement. However, I suggest that almost all of the fishermen we are discussing, if not all of them, are not seeking a route to settlement. I ask the Minister whether that might be seen as a means of differentiating these cases from cases where people are actively seeking to settle in this country. As the right hon. Member suggested, it does not seem beyond the wit of man or even Government to apply such a measure, and it would remain consistent with the overall principle that the English language test is a requirement of a visa that could lead to a route to settlement.
If such a move could be made on the English language testing, it would be a game-changer and would help this vital industry and our coastal communities not just to survive but to thrive, as we all know they can. The industry can thrive while maintaining and sustaining our marine environment without the need for hastily imposed and poorly thought out highly protected marine areas, which have been a source of much debate lately. That is perhaps for another debate on another day.
Will the Minister consider the wider seafood production value chains, which have already been mentioned? As I and people in the industry have said, Brexit and becoming an independent coastal state provides a fantastic opportunity to gain more access to catching in our own waters. That is undeniable. As domestic and international markets recover from the covid lockdown, we are seeing demand for our excellent seafood produce grow, both at home and overseas, but the onshore processing side of the sector is experiencing similar issues with access to labour as those we have been discussing today. As well as this week’s announcement, I welcome the previous announcement that fishing jobs will be added to the shortage occupations list.
In a letter from the Home Secretary a few weeks ago, the industry was informed of other forms of support, including a service to guide employers and applicants through the visa and sponsor application process, ensuring that there are sufficient English language testing slots, expediting visa and sponsor applications, further accelerating the decision-making process for no extra charge, and dedicated points of contact in the UK Visas and Immigration service for the sector. That was reasonably well welcomed by the offshore catching part of the fishing sector, but this industry has sourced personnel from outside the European economic area for many years, so people are reasonably experienced in those processes. Such a suite of support, if it could be expanded beyond the catching sector, would be very welcome in the processing sector. This type of assistance has already been provided to other industries, including the food and drink processing sector, so there is precedent.
I welcome on behalf of seasonal fruit farmers the announcement of 10,000 additional visas for the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. I encourage the Minister and his officials to consider adding to that scheme, without necessarily increasing the numbers, those elements of the seafood industry that are seasonal—for example, the herring roe season.
David Duguid
I thought that might prompt a response. I think it is in October or November. Fishing happens all year round, but there is seasonal activity at a time when the industry struggles to find people. Adding that to the seasonal agricultural workers scheme or seasonal food workers scheme could be another option. Such a change would involve only a small number of visas, but it would have a huge impact on the coastal communities.
I will end on the subject of numbers. While we welcome the 55,000 annual visas for seasonal agricultural workers, the numbers that we are talking about today— I am surprised that it has not come up before—are in the hundreds, not the tens of thousands. In addition, we are talking about getting through a transition period, as other hon. Members have said, to a point in the future when, ideally, we would get every single person in the seafood industry working from the local communities in which the industries exist, but certainly we would be talking about very low numbers in the future.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
As always, Mr Vickers, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this afternoon’s debate on visa arrangements for inshore fishing industry crews. It is good that it has brought together Members from Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), as well as, obviously my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whom I thank for bringing this motion before the Chamber and allowing us to discuss it again.
I say “again” not to be disparaging in any way. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked, how many times have we discussed the issues surrounding the inshore fleet? Yet certainly since I first came here in 2015, these issues have not been resolved and the Government seem utterly incapable of properly getting to grips with them, no matter how many times they are raised.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Strangford will recall us going to the Home Office in 2016, 2017, and I think again in 2019, with the representatives of our respective fishing organisations—and indeed, in one case with representatives from the Philippine embassy—to sit with Ministers and try to explain how the chronic shortage of professional seafarers in the UK is having a devastating effect on our communities, and how we desperately needed those professional fishing crews to be allowed to come and work in the inshore fleets, particularly around Northern Ireland and the west coast of Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Member will also recall that, for the most part, we were treated with great courtesy and listened to. Our ideas, we believed, would be examined. But then, every single time, the things that we asked for were rejected out of hand. I implore the Minister to please be the one to break that cycle.
David Duguid
In my remarks, I asked for more constructive engagement. However, would the hon. Member join me and others in seeking an actual meeting with Ministers—I know, it is difficult enough for us Conservatives to get meetings with Ministers—and officials, and with key stakeholders from the industry who know the industry far better than we do?
Brendan O'Hara
Absolutely. Despite having been there so many times in the past, I—and I am sure he, and every other hon. Member here today—would love to be able to sit down again with the Home Office, and with the representatives of these communities and industries, and say, “Please, let this time be different.”
Mr Carmichael
I am never going to give up on this. I think we have made that very clear. However, the reason why I am particularly unhappy about this now is that this feels like it is the final word from the Home Secretary.
The Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance engaged with the Home Office in detail and at length. It explained everything in incredible detail that even the slowest of learners must have been able to pick up. At the end of the day, it just got told a straight no. There comes a point where we must ask, “What more do we have to do to get this case across?”
Brendan O'Hara
I absolutely share the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration. It seems that, no matter who we speak to, no matter when we speak to them, and no matter the strength of the case that we put forward, there just seems, historically, to have been absolutely no desire on the part of the Home Office even to see the problems that the inshore fishing industry has, to view it as an exceptional case, and to understand the Department’s responsibility to help these communities and the industry to find a bespoke solution to their problems. We were repeatedly told that, as far as the Home Office was concerned, it was an issue for the fishing industry and was for the fishing industry to sort out.
However, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland have said, does anyone believe that we would willingly continue on this merry-go-round if there were easy, quick-fix solutions to be found, and if there were locally available crews waiting and queuing up to work on the boats? There simply are not. That is why we have come away from every one of those meetings with the distinct impression that the Home Office, rather than wanting to be part of finding a workable solution, sees its role as being there to police the legislation that is already in place.
The hon. Member for Strangford was correct when he said that there is a complete unwillingness on the part of the Home Office to accept that the 12-mile limit on the west coast of Scotland and in Northern Ireland is vastly different from the 12-mile limit on the east coast, and that a blanket one-size-fits-all policy totally ignores the fact that, for smaller fishing boats working out of Oban, Tarbert, Carradale or Campbeltown, the 12-mile limit stretches far out into the dangerous deep waters of the north Atlantic.
We also know that the mainstay of the west coast fleet is the shellfish industry. It has arguably the best langoustine and scallops in the world, which are found in the safer, shallower inshore waters in the Scottish Hebrides. The example given by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about his fishing communities having to go beyond the uninhabited islands should be remarkable, but maybe in these circumstances it is not. While on the east coast a large fishing fleet can head out to sea outside UK territorial waters relatively quickly, on the west coast we simply cannot. The problem of geography is essentially creating a huge problem for one of the most important sectors of our rural west coast economy. Historically, the Government’s response has been that it is not their problem to find the solution. While I welcome certain things that have been introduced, history and experience tell me that we will not get much further; I hope that the Minister is the one to prove me wrong.
It has already been said that what is being proposed in the skilled worker visa does not create a level playing field at all, as the cost of securing the skilled worker visa is huge. Skippers and owners will have to pay out thousands of pounds getting visas and the ability to bring in workers. While the lowering of the fees and the reduction of the salary threshold are all to be welcomed, as we have heard so often this afternoon, the draconian requirement for applicants to have an English language examination is causing huge problems.
For those recruiting deckhands to work on inshore fishing boats, the demand that every worker achieves level 4, B1 in English showing that they can read, write, speak and understand English is almost ridiculously prohibitive. This is not the first time that that has been raised in the House. Late last year, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke of a skipper in her constituency who brought in a vastly experienced Ghanaian fisherman to work as a deckhand, but he could not get past the B1. He could not get past that English language test, and it made a huge difference to not just him, but the boat owner and everyone else on the crew, because they simply could not go to sea. The Minister will be well aware of the article in Fishing News in which the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance told the paper that
“getting fishermen through the B1 English language requirement is now a big issue.”
I know that he will be aware of that, because the hon. Member for Totnes just told him that Crew Services Limited said that of the 325 non-UK crew on its books, only six have that certificate.
Earlier this week, I was in contact with a number of boat owners and skippers in Argyll and Bute. I talked to Malcolm MacKinnon, who owns five vessels in Tarbert. We discussed what the situation on the ground there was, and he told me that because of the chronic shortage of deckhands, his 22-metre fishing boat, The Elegance, has been tied up since 9 April. Malcolm employs hugely experienced skippers, and his opinion is that the requirement for deckhands to be able to speak and understand English may well be reasonable, but the demand that they are also able to read and write English to that level is a completely unnecessary hurdle, and utterly disproportionate to the tasks they will be asked to perform while on his boat.
Malcolm pointed out that a tied-up boat does not affect just the skipper, his crew and their families through a loss of income; it has a huge knock-on effect on the local community, where businesses rely heavily on each other in a way that perhaps does not exist in more urban areas. He told me that over a 10-week period, the boat would normally have spent money on 80,000 litres of fuel, 50 tonnes of ice and £3,000 of local groceries and supplies, as well as a supply of gloves, overalls and various other items from the chandlery in the local area. He also told me he was in the process of buying a new vessel, but decided to pull out of the purchase because he knew he could not get the crew.
In Mr McKinnon’s opinion, the whole of the west coast of Scotland would probably get by on only 300 foreign crew members. That is the level we are talking about; that is the reality of the situation on the ground in the west coast of Scotland. Mr McKinnon’s case cannot and should not ever be seen as being unique, because it is multiplied many times over across the west coast. The impact on already fragile rural communities and their economies is enormous.
All we are asking for is a level playing field—one that does not penalise small fishing communities simply on the basis of their geographic position in these islands. I ask the Minister, after all of the years, after all the meetings and after all the pleas that have been made from across this House, will he be the one to finally break the cycle, so we can get that level playing field for our small, local, rural communities?
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate, and for his determined and relentless advocacy on an issue that is of the utmost importance to his fishing community and to fishing communities across the whole of the United Kingdom. He has explained that some 600 jobs could be at risk across these areas as a result of problems caused by the end of the transitional arrangements. He has also clearly set out that persistent efforts to reach some accommodation with Ministers to soften the blow of those changes appear to have fallen on deaf ears.
I also thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and the hon. Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) for making excellent contributions.
I have a couple of brief points on the principles that underpin the Opposition’s approach to the points-based system. First, we support it; it was, in fact, created by a Labour Government in 2008. We believe, however, that it is being mismanaged, and there are real opportunities for improvement. Secondly, migrant workers play a vital role in our economy, but it is clear that the reason employers are having to go abroad is that for 13 years we have seen Governments failing to train Britain’s home-grown talent to fill the 1 million vacancies we have. We have 7 million people on NHS waiting lists in England alone. Thirdly, the Labour party wants the net migration number to come down. We want to see our public and private sectors recruit and train more home-grown talent to fill vacancies before looking overseas. That is why we have set out practical plans to deliver a skills agenda that gets people back into the labour market and workforce and brings down NHS waiting times. Those are the three principles that underpin our approach to the issue.
I will now turn to the specific focus of this debate. I was particularly struck by an industry overview published by the Sea Fish Industry Authority last year, which noted:
“Across the supply chain, businesses raised issues with the Skilled Worker Visa route as a solution to labour shortages. This option was seen as prohibitively expensive, especially for small businesses. Businesses also reported that the application system was slow and difficult to use. The high English language requirement for the visa was seen as prohibitive by many businesses. As a result, some industry groups began exploring avenues to recruiting workers from countries where English is an official language, such as Belize.”.
The Government’s position, as set out in section 43 of Nationality and Borders Act 2022, is that foreign nationals require sponsored visas under the points-based system. However, in recognition of the fact that many crews have been incorrectly relying on transit visas rather than work visas, the Government agreed to delay implementation of section 43. Then, on 20 April this year, in response to an urgent question from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, the Home Office confirmed that the six-month delay would not be extended.
We are now in a situation where a number of really important questions need to be answered. I would like to hear from the Minister on the following points. The Government have said that the rules in effect from last month are intended to encourage employers in the fishing industry to recruit locally if possible. Can the Minister tell us what recent assessment he has made of the extent to which the current workforce requirements of the fishing industry have been met by recruiting domestic workers? Secondly, what specific steps are the Government taking to provide the necessary training opportunities for UK nationals to take on skilled jobs on fishing vessels?
Thirdly, during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who was Immigration Minister at the time, said that the codification of Government policy on visa requirements for fishing vessels in section 43 was likely to have a “negligible” impact. Based on the information now available to the Government, was that a reasonable assumption?
Fourthly, what measures have the Government put in place to monitor the effects of the transition to the new system? Specifically, will Ministers commit to ensuring that there is robust, ongoing analysis of the impact on workforce supply and the UK’s food security more broadly?
Fifthly, since the relevant changes came into force last month, how many applications has the Home Office received from employers in the fishing sector for sponsor licences and skilled workers visas? How many of those applications have already been granted and how many are still outstanding?
Sixthly, what does the initial evidence tell us about the degree to which meeting the English language requirements continues to pose particular challenges to would-be visa sponsors?
Seventhly, will the Minister update us on what progress the Government and/or their contractors working overseas have made towards ensuring adequate provision of the requisite English language training for prospective workers in countries such as the Philippines, Sri Lanka and others that Members have highlighted?
A major part of the Government’s justification for refusing to extend the transition period is the argument that the English language requirements under the skilled worker route are an important means of protecting migrant workers against abuses in the workplace. Will the Minister therefore explain why his party’s manifesto commitment to establish a single enforcement body for labour market abuses remains unfulfilled? Will he also give an unambiguous commitment to fulfilling that manifesto pledge before the next general election?
The fishing industry is a vital part of our economy, our food security and our broader national story. The current system simply is not working, and the Government should get on and fix it.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate and for the constructive meeting that he and I had earlier in the year with representatives from the fishing sector. I am grateful to him and to all other hon. Members who have participated today. I was grateful for a recent meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), which was very productive. He made a number of important points, and in a moment I will respond to him as to how the Government intend to take them forward. I will pass on to the Prime Minister an application from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) to be fishing Minister, although he might have competition from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan.
The Government fully recognise the importance of the fishing industry to the UK’s economy. It has played an integral part in the UK’s heritage and will play an important part in its future. It is a mainstay of coastal communities. It provides employment, shapes infrastructure, and provides nutritious and delicious food for our domestic and international markets.
In recognition of the important contribution that fishing makes, the Home Secretary and I are of the view that, following the implementation of section 43 of the Nationality and Borders Act, which clarifies the long-standing position that migrant workers within 12 nautical miles of the UK require a work visa, it is vital that the Government do what they can to find further ways to support the fishing sector in using the immigration system.
In the Home Secretary’s letter to the sector last month, which has already been referred to, she set out that the Department stands ready to deliver a comprehensive package of support to the sector. The package includes guiding fishing firms through the visa and sponsor application process, as well as the broader immigration system; ensuring that there is sufficient capacity for English language testing slots; expediting visa and sponsor applications; further quickening the decision-making process for no extra charge; and having dedicated points of contact in UK Visas and Immigration for the sector. That is a broad package. It is based on one that we have produced for other sectors in the recent past that has been appreciated by those sectors and has generated dividends.
Mr Carmichael
Earlier today in the House, the Minister said that the package had been welcomed by the fishing industry. Who was he talking to who welcomed it?
Robert Jenrick
My Department has told me that stake- holders have welcomed it, and I think it is a good package. We are already starting to engage with firms and representatives who are responding to it. The sector is well catered for under the points-based system, but I will come in a moment to the changes that we propose to make. Those in a range of eligible fishing and processing roles—including deckhands, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to earlier—have had access to the skilled worker visa since April 2021.
We believe that with the right level of support, the sector should be able to further navigate the existing immigration system. Building on that, and further to representations from a number of right hon. and hon. Members present, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan, we have decided to add further fishing occupations—share fishermen, trawler skippers and deckhands on large fishing vessels—to the shortage occupation list, all of which the Migration Advisory Committee recommended in 2020 as part of its SOL review. That will ensure that the fishing sector can continue to access the talent that it needs at reduced cost, and the Government will implement that during the summer on an interim basis until the wider MAC review into the SOL has been completed.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Member’s knowledge of the fishing sector is superior to mine. I do not know the exact definition, but I will happily get my officials to write to him and we will place on record in the Library of the House what the Home Office considers the official definition to be.
We strongly encourage the sector to engage with us to ensure that firms can attract the workers that are needed. The sooner that happens, the less disruption the sector will face. My officials, along with officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, stand ready to help. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said—echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan and others—the long-term, sustainable answer is not to rely solely on international labour but to train more domestic workers to embrace technology and automation to the extent that that is applicable. We all appreciate the challenges that the sector faces and the difficulty in recruiting domestically at present. Nobody is blind to that, and the Home Secretary and I are certainly not.
On broader non-immigration aspects—this point was raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and others—DEFRA continues to run the access to labour working group that was launched in June 2022 with the purpose of improving relationships with the industry, ensuring that it has a voice at the table, and Home Office officials are represented on that working group. That includes representatives from the catching, processing, aquaculture and shellfish sectors across the United Kingdom. I have encouraged my officials to play an active part in that so that we can have the dialogue that everyone present seeks to achieve.
In terms of helping the sector to recruit and train the next generation of fishermen and women, the Government have provided funding through the £100 million UK seafood fund to remove some of the barriers that new entrants to the sector face, and DEFRA has awarded £1.1 million through the fund for skills and training to help industry with recruitment and retention issues. Seven projects across the UK have received funding to improve the quality of training, promote career progression and help to attract new people into the sector.
Mr Carmichael
What help is that to the constituent I referenced who still owes £680,000 to the bank, and who cannot go to sea because he cannot get the crew? He will not be around by the time these people are available for his ship.
Robert Jenrick
I appreciate the urgency of the issue, but it is important that the sector plays its part in considering the long-term future of training and recruiting new individuals. The funds provided by DEFRA will play a part in helping the sector to adapt to the future.
In addition to the grant schemes in England, the fisheries and seafood scheme offers extensive support aimed at attracting new entrants. Eligible projects include supporting new entrants into the industry, the creation of job opportunities and the provision of apprenticeship schemes for new entrants, perhaps including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes.
Mr Carmichael
Is it the Minister’s position today that the same people—the same stakeholders in the industry —who have been telling him that they welcome this somehow or other did not realise they had a responsibility to upskill their own workforce?
Robert Jenrick
No, it is not. As with any sector of the economy, there is a role for Government in producing an immigration system that enables access to foreign labour on a pragmatic basis where there are skills shortages. There is also a role for the industry to adapt, evolve and train British workers to take those jobs, and both have to work together in harmony. I have just set out the funding streams available through DEFRA to help support the sector to do that, but I do not underestimate how challenging that will be for the sector.
Jim Shannon
I do not think that any of us here do not welcome the training money and the opportunities it will give the sector back home to try to gain employment. I am mindful that that is a challenging target to meet. What we have asked for today—if the Minister is coming to this point, I apologise—is short-term help with the English language requirement. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) put forward the idea that the English qualification should be A2, and I suggested it should be B2. We made it clear that that would be for one year, and then there would be a target to meet the B1 qualification. I felt that that was a positive and constructive way forward, and it helps us as representatives of the fishing sector. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I am labouring the point, but we need such a break- through.
Robert Jenrick
I was coming to that point. I was not going to conclude my remarks without addressing it properly.
Anthony Mangnall
I apologise to the hon. Member for Strangford for jumping in on the back of his question. The funds are welcome, but I urge the Minister to do all he can to encourage DEFRA to see that access to them is made as easy as possible. I am concerned that in my patch, we repeatedly fail to apply for the funds. There are certain levels of complexity that I do not think are necessary when we are trying to help the industry. It is becoming quite cumbersome, so perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will relay that to his counterpart.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that ask, and I will certainly relay the feedback to the Secretary of State for DEFRA.
I will turn to the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, and then I will come to the ask of the hon. Member for Strangford. As the Home Secretary set out in her letter to the industry, although it is a long-standing Government policy that overseas workers in UK waters needed visas, we accepted that there was a need to legislate for clarity. The fishing sector has been using transit visas erroneously, in our view, for a number of years without consequence, and it was vital to correct that given the labour abuse that we saw in some parts of the sector.
Foreign nationals coming to work in the UK, on land or on our waters, should comply with the immigration system. That includes the firms that are looking to hire those workers. I do not believe that is controversial, and the fishing industry is no exception. None the less, as a result of the clarification there is a transition that needs to be managed, as right hon. and hon. Members have said today.
David Duguid
I do not think anybody in this Chamber today would disagree on the need to avoid labour abuse. But would the Department—I understand that if there are ongoing investigations, this is not appropriate—provide details of any convictions of labour abuse that have taken place? Perhaps not today, but will he inform Members of where abuses have taken place? I am not aware of any in my constituency, but if I was, I and other hon. Members would be helping the Government to throw the book at those people. I suspect it is not as prevalent as some in the media might want to make out.
Robert Jenrick
I do not want to overstate it, but I know from my conversations with officials in the Department that they believe there is evidence of abuse. If I am able to put any of that in the public domain to give a guide on the scale of it, I would be pleased to.
Section 43 of the Nationality and Borders Act simply clarifies what has been the Government’s policy position for some time, which is that foreign workers working in our waters need permission to do so. It does not introduce a new policy.
Mr Carmichael
Why did the Minister include Sule Skerry within the definition of waters to which the Act applies?
Robert Jenrick
I was interested to hear the point that the right hon. Gentleman made in his speech. As I understand it, the Home Office has simply taken the standard definition of 12 nautical miles, and all islands that fall within UK waters are in scope of the UK’s immigration system. It is not within the power of the Home Office to change where UK waters begin and end. If he contests that or would like to further discuss the matter, I would be happy to take it up with him.
Mr Carmichael
It is in our interests to try to polish this particular item, because it could make a real difference. Sule Skerry is about 90 or 100 miles out from Orkney mainland. Those waters are very different from the ones we are talking about. Boats often go there, and they rely on it for shelter. Including places such as Sule Skerry will put lives at risk. Is the Minister happy with that?
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to make further inquiries and come back to the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it, 12 nautical miles merely represents the standard definition of UK waters. If that is the case, it seems difficult to hive off particular parts of UK waters for the purposes of our immigration system. I am happy to be corrected if that is not an accurate description.
Brendan O'Hara
I appreciate that the Minister is being very generous. It is not about carving out certain parts of UK territorial waters. This affects the entire west coast—certainly of Scotland—and it takes in all of Northern Ireland and large chunks of England. It is not a small tweak that is required, but a complete change in our understanding of what the 12 nautical miles means for both the west coast and the east coast. This is not a tinkering point.
Robert Jenrick
I understand that, and I apologise if I gave the impression that this affects a small part of UK waters. Either way, the Home Office has taken a standard definition of UK waters and applied it for the purposes of our immigration system. Ostensibly, that sounds like a reasonable way to proceed, but I am happy to make further inquiries and revert to the hon. Gentleman if there is another way to do so within the confines of the law.
David Duguid
I suspect that the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) equally refers to somewhere such as Rockall. I do not think it is in anybody’s constituency, but it is so far away from the UK mainland that we think it should not apply. However, under the definition of the 12 nautical miles, the 12 nautical miles around Rockall—which is not inhabited—are impacted as well.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful for that. The point is registered. I will make inquiries and revert to all hon. Members present who are interested.
I turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford about English language requirements. In our 2019 manifesto, we committed to prioritising people who have a good grasp of English in our visa system. The English language requirement is fundamental to successful integration into British society, helping visa holders to participate in community life and work. As the hon. Member noted, the level we set is B1, or lower intermediate English, from the common European framework of reference for languages. That level of English is applied for skilled worker visas without exception, unless the applicant can prove that they are from a majority English-speaking country, of which there are some that provide fishermen and women to UK businesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said that workers from Belize, which is an English-speaking country, come to the UK in some numbers. That level is not fluency, but it is the ability to understand and deal with the main points likely to arise in conversation on matters relating to work, school, leisure and so on. Without that level, applicants may struggle to support themselves and their families in the UK.
A good grasp of English can also be important in the workplace, particularly in busy or potentially dangerous environments, and to fulfil health and safety requirements. Workers who do not have a good command of English are more likely to be vulnerable to exploitation and less able to understand their rights. That is vital in a sector that, as we have just noted, has had some issues with labour market abuses.
Stephen Kinnock
On labour market abuses, will the Minister set out the timeline for his Government’s implementation of their manifesto pledge to create a single integrated labour market enforcement authority?
Robert Jenrick
We do not have a timetable at present, but we are working with the relevant stakeholders, such as the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which deals with abuses onshore, rather than offshore, to find the right approach to protect workers in all settings. I am happy to update the hon. Gentleman further on the likely timescales for that.
I would be happy to consider the proposal of the hon. Member for Strangford, which he set out well, although I do not want to give false hope that we are certain to take it forward. For the reasons I set out, we have principled arguments for maintaining a good degree of English. All of us, including the hon. Gentleman, care about preventing exploitation. We want the people who come to this country to speak a good degree of English, and we want to ensure that we have a well-integrated and cohesive country. As a matter of principle, we have taken the view that all those coming on skilled worker visas should have that level of English.
I appreciate that, in this instance, a high number of those coming for such purposes will ultimately return to their own countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan said. None the less, it is a route to settlement, and we have to be very careful about enabling people to live in the UK for sustained periods or settle here permanently if they cannot participate fully in life in this country.
Jim Shannon
If I heard the Minister right, I believe the Department was prepared to consider A2. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and I—indeed, all hon. Members who know fishing organisations—know that they are satisfied that A2, which is a lesser requirement, meets their safety requirements. It gives those people the level of understanding that the Government wish them to have. If that is the case, I suggest that the A2 qualification would be sufficient to move us forward in a constructive and positive way.
You are a very knowledgeable lady when it comes to fishing issues, Mrs Murray. You are not participating in this debate, of course, but I just want to make that point. In the past five years, I cannot recollect any abuses of fishermen. I am aware of that happening in Northern Ireland about 20 years ago, but the fishing organisations have moved forward because they want to ensure the safety and security of their fishermen and safeguard their rights. That is a positive policy, and I welcome that.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I assure him that I will take that request away and give it careful consideration. If there is any further information that he or the representative bodies would like to submit to us, I would be happy to consider that. But I think he understands the principles on which the decision is taken and that it is not an easy decision to give special treatment to one particular sector when others in the country would like similar treatment. Our overall policy is the right one. We want people to have a good degree of English if they are coming here for sustained periods or on a route to settlement.
I would like to update hon. Members following the conversation I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. He asked for two particular Home Office considerations. First, he asked whether the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which, as he noted, we have extended into 2024 and increased to up to 55,000 workers, could be extended to include certain fishing occupations that are undertaken onshore and that could be construed to be seasonal in nature. I undertook that we would consider that. My hon. Friend undertook that he and the sector would build an evidence base to support and inform the decision by the Home Office.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asked whether the package of support set out by the Home Secretary to enable easier access to the skilled worker visa system could be extended to certain onshore activities. Again, I undertook to look into that. I will revert to him and other right hon. and hon. Members once we have taken those issues forward. If other Members or representatives from the sector who might be listening to the debate want to participate in informing those decisions, I encourage them to do so.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—although we still have an hour and a quarter. He has been generous with his time so far. The hon. Member for Strangford can still take time at the end of the debate, as I recall.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), told me on 20 April that she would pass on my request for a meeting. That request was to meet not just me, but fishing organisations as well. I do not know whether that maybe slipped her mind, or if there are other bases on which meetings are offered. Will the Minister meet me, other hon. Members who have an interest and fishing organisations, to hear from them, in early course? Those organisations may be different from the stakeholders who have given him the views that seem to inform his thinking today.
All joking apart, this really matters. It is having a massive impact on some of the most economically fragile communities in this country.
Robert Jenrick
I would be pleased to meet the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I have met the hon. Member for Strangford and representatives from the Northern Irish fishing sector, and I met my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. That is a decent number—I have met two out of the four Members here. I would be pleased to do the same for the right hon. Gentleman.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing the debate, and all those who have spoken. I hope I have made clear that the Government are committed to supporting the fishing sector as much as we can. On top of the already good coverage that our immigration system has of the fishing sector, I hope that the additional support that the Home Secretary and I have brought forward in the last few weeks, both in the package to assist with navigating the skilled worker visa system and now the additional occupations added to the shortage occupation list, will further improve the situation.
I hope Members will assist the Government in encouraging full engagement with our offer of support, which in turn should enable the industry to make full use of the system. The sooner that engagement happens, the less disruption there will be. I look forward to working with the sector in the future.
Jim Shannon
First of all, I thank all the Members here today for their significant contributions to the debate, starting with the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). He and I seem to be in many debates together. We are always in fishing debates, as indeed, I think, are all of us who are here now.
The hon. Member for Totnes referred to the training scheme for locals. That is a very important issue and the Minister responded to it well. It involves the fishermen’s apprenticeship scheme, which I know the hon. Gentleman has spoken about before, in Westminster Hall and elsewhere. It also relates to the processing sector, which can help to grow the economy of the United Kingdom, and that is good news.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) brings a wealth of knowledge to these debates and I genuinely always look forward to hearing his contributions. He told us that a third of the economic sector in his constituency is dependent on fishing, which shows how important it is locally. He referred to transit visas and said that fishing is critical for the future of our economy.
There was a request about the English language test. That might be a small part of the changes that we need, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, but those changes will be critical for moving us forward. Minister, we want to move forward with you; that is what we are saying. But we need help to get that issue over the line.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and I have also become good friends during his time here. Fishing brings us together—indeed, many other things do. The Union brings us together; we are interested in that. Today, he again outlined the importance of fishing to his constituency. He also said—I loved this—that “green shoots” need to encouraged. The “green shoots” are there. We just need to take a wee step forward in the right direction to get things over the line.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance and to what it is saying. I think that from today onwards we will probably take some of these organisations together on the basis of this debate and use their work to add to our comments, because that would be helpful. The POs that we all have in our constituencies can do that as well.
I always appreciate the contributions of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara). He was very clear in supporting the key issues of what we are about: the English language test; reducing the requirement from B1 to B2; and safety. All those things would all be retained, which is really important. He also made another important point: while we are focusing on the fishing vessels out in the sea, the industry back in the harbours, the processing sector, the shops, the diesel sellers and—very importantly—the families, are all involved, too.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), made a significant contribution. He asked all the right questions without going through all the fishing noise that we all have, and I thank him for it. Indeed, we all thank him for that, because I think he summed things up very succinctly for us all.
I very much appreciate the Minister’s response to the debate. I also appreciate the fishing package, and the aim in the future to have the treaty in place. All of us across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would get the advantage of that. He knows the key issue and I welcome his commitment to look at it again. To help him and his Department to understand all the issues better, the key issue is that the B2 qualification is in safety and in understanding. The industry and the sector are really committed to working together with him.
This is a joint enterprise for the betterment of all the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I think we can go forward together and I thank everyone for their constructive and positive contributions today. Finally, Mrs Murray, it is always nice to see you in the Chair. For once, you were able to oversee a debate rather than participating in it. Thank you so much for chairing today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered visa arrangements for inshore industry fishing crew.
Written Statements
Contingent Liabilities: Liquidations of UKCloud Ltd and Virtual Infrastructure Group Ltd
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
l am pleased to report that, following the compulsory liquidations of UKCloud Ltd and Virtual Infrastructure Group Ltd, His Majesty’s Government have successfully enabled the continuity of public services. On 26 October 2022, I laid a departmental minute to notify the House of two contingent liabilities incurred by the Cabinet Office: to indemnify the official receiver for any costs and expenses incurred by him in carrying out the proper performance of his duties as liquidator of UKCloud Ltd and its parent company, Virtual Infrastructure Group Ltd; and an indemnity for any claims made against him in respect of the same. This was followed by written statements from myself and Baroness Neville-Rolfe in each of our respective Houses.
At the time of the statements, it was not possible to reliably estimate the size or maturity of either contingent liability.
In respect of costs incurred, the official receiver now expects the peak funding requirement of the liquidations to be £20 million and the liquidation to conclude in the first half of 2024.
In respect of the claims indemnity provided to the official receiver, I would like to assure the House that the official receiver has not been notified of any potential claims that may require a call on the indemnity, and that all UKCloud Ltd customers have now successfully migrated their services on to alternative platforms with no unexpected disruptions to public services. As such, it is deemed unlikely any claims on the indemnity will be made post-liquidation. We therefore assess that it is unlikely that there will be any cost to the public purse as a result of this contingent liability.
[HCWS810]
Level 3 Qualifications Review
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
Today I am announcing an update to phase 2 of the Government’s reforms to post-16 qualifications at level 3 in England, removing funding from technical qualifications that overlap with T-levels. We are publishing a provisional list, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wave-3-t-levels-overlapping-qualifications of 92 technical qualifications that have been assessed to overlap with wave 3 T-levels in business and administration; engineering and manufacturing; and finance and accounting.
The assessment of overlapping qualifications is carried out by independent assessors, who carry out in-depth reviews of qualifications. This is the same process as for waves 1 and 2 T-levels. Subject to the outcomes of an appeal process which gives awarding organisations the opportunity to contest a qualification’s placement on the list, we will withdraw public funding at 16 to 19 from these qualifications for new starts from August 2025. On the provisional list of 92 qualifications, we know there were 36 qualifications which had no enrolments and a further 24 which had fewer than 100 enrolments in 2020-21 academic year, highlighting the need to streamline the qualifications system. The final overlap list for wave 3 T-levels will be published in the autumn.
We are reforming technical qualifications at level 3 as the current qualifications do not consistently progress young people to related employment. In the future technical qualifications will be based on the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education’s occupational standards, which have been designed by employers and which set out the knowledge, skills, and behaviours that employers need.
Removing funding from technical qualifications which overlap with T-levels will ensure young people can feel confident that they are studying technical qualifications which will prepare them for jobs in their chosen occupation. The breadth and depth of T-levels is unmatched, giving students a thorough understanding of the sector and the skills needed to work in specific occupations, as well as an industry placement which gives them valuable experience.
T-levels are being scaled up in a managed roll-out, with 16 subjects currently available at over 160 providers across England, with 24 T-levels in total planned by 2025. We are continuing to build on the success of T-levels and have put in place extra measures to support providers, employers and students. We are providing a 10% uplift in funding to providers delivering T-levels for the 2023-24 academic year, a new £12 million employer support fund and extra funding for providers to provide careers guidance on T-levels. The Gatsby Charitable Foundation is also supporting providers as they make the move to T-levels. This includes a new technical education networks programme to offer subject-specific support for T-level teaching, and providing grant funding to the Baker Dearing Educational Trust to support UTCs in their transition to T-levels.
We are supporting more learners to access T-levels through the T-level transition programme. This is a high-quality, holistic study programme for learners who would benefit from the additional study time and preparation that it will give them before they start their T-level. Learners on the programme develop a broad range of knowledge, skills and behaviours to prepare them for T-levels. This includes the national technical content developed for the programme, through which learners gain industry-relevant technical knowledge and practical skills aligned to T-levels, as well as gaining valuable work experience and preparation for the workplace, English, maths and digital skills, developing their study skills and wider personal development. In total, close to 9,800 students have enrolled on the programme in the first three years, since 2020, and provisional estimates show that about 49% of the first cohort subsequently progressed onto level 3 or higher outcomes.
The removal of public funding from qualifications that overlap with T-levels at 16 to 19 forms a small part of our wider technical education reforms. Our new integrated funding approval process means that from 2025, awarding organisations can develop and submit new technical qualifications for funding, which are based on occupational standards approved by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.
Awarding organisations with qualifications on the wave 3 overlap list have been notified, as have the Federation of Awarding Bodies and Joint Council for Qualifications.
[HCWS808]
Rock Review of Agricultural Tenancies: Government Response
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I am repeating the statement made yesterday by my noble friend the Minister, Lord Benyon.
Following the UK Farm to Fork summit last week, the Government have today set out its next steps to support tenant farmers who are at the heart of our rural economy. The Government supports tenant farmers because there is no better way to bring new people into the sector.
We are today publishing the Government response to the Rock Review of tenant farming in England. From day one of the agricultural transition, we have worked with tenant farmers as we co-designed our farming schemes, utilising their knowledge and experience. This is the next step, alongside significant work to date, to support farmers in all corners of the country to produce world class food, while protecting the environment. The Government supports tenant farming, because it is one of the best routes to bring new people into the sector.
I would like to thank Baroness Rock and the tenancy working group for their time and dedication in producing the review. Recognising how critical the tenanted sector is to a successful agricultural transition, we commissioned the group, chaired by Baroness Rock, to carry out a comprehensive review of tenant farming in England.
Today’s response builds on the considerable progress that we have made since the review was commissioned to implement their ongoing feedback. For example, we have designed the sustainable farming incentive (SFI) to be as accessible as possible to tenants, with the addition of six new standards in 2023 and shorter agreements. Further, half of the 22 landscape recovery projects selected in the first round involve tenants and we are delivering the aims of the local nature recovery (LNR) scheme by evolving countryside stewardship (CS) instead of building an entirely new scheme.
As announced at Budget 2023, we launched a consultation on extending inheritance tax relief.
We have opened a call for evidence on the taxation of ecosystem service markets to understand the commercial operations and the areas of uncertainty in respect of taxation.
We have also published the “Nature Markets Framework”, which provides greater clarity on the principles that will guide the development of UK market mechanisms for carbon and other ecosystem services and set out next steps including arrangements to develop a suite of investment standards for nature markets. These consultations, combined with the Nature Markets Framework, should give tenants and landlords more confidence to invest in and securely access payments from these new markets, opening up new revenue streams for the sector.
We strongly agree with the review that tenant farmers should be able to access farm offers; make their essential contribution to restoring the natural environment; and produce food for the nation. We are therefore taking forward the majority of Baroness Rock’s recommendations and setting out the next steps to implement them today.
Today we are announcing a new farm tenancy forum to put in place more formal engagement and feedback structures between Defra and the tenanted sector. This will allow the tenanted sector to work with us, to provide regular feedback on trends in tenant/landlord agreements and report any emerging issues that may need addressing, effectively monitor trends in landlord-tenant relationships. We are inviting industry organisations who represent tenant farmers, agricultural landlords and professional advisors who work in the sector to be members of this group. The forum will support the implementation of the Government response to the Rock Review, feeding back real-world experience and insight on progress. Terms of reference for the group has been published alongside this Government response.
We will be launching a call for evidence this summer to explore the proposal for a tenant farming commissioner in England in more detail. This will examine the benefits and impacts of how a tenant farming commissioner might work in practice and how the role would fit within existing procedures and regulations.
We agree with the review that the tenanted sector has an essential role as a route into farming for new entrants. We will work to embed the views of the tenanted sector in the development of our new entrant support scheme, working closely with the new tenant farming forum.
Our response sets out the significant progress we have made to ensure our new farming schemes work for every type of farmer. We are supporting those with shorter tenancies or where there is a change of land manager/owner by removing penalties and increasing flexibility in agreement lengths, where it still provides value for taxpayer money. We are also introducing a requirement in countryside stewardship for landlords to engage with their tenant prior to applying in order to obtain their support.
The legacy of the review will mean that tenant concerns are heard and addressed through our policies and schemes, and we will continue to engage with the forum and the wider sector as we implement its recommendations and move through the agricultural transition.
[HCWS806]
Hong Kong Six-monthly Report
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
The latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was published today. It covers the period from 1 July to 31 December 2022. The report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A copy is also available on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/six-monthly-reports-on-hong-kong.
I commend the report to the House.
[HCWS812]
Delivering for Patients
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
I refer hon. Members to the oral statements I will make in the House today, 25 May 2023, on patient choice and new hospitals.
[HCWS811]
Government Response to Legal Aid Means Test Review
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my noble Friend Lord Bellamy KC, has made the following written statement:
Legal aid is fundamental to a fair justice system and underpins the rule of law. It ensures equality of arms, so that people can access justice and enforce their legal rights. Means testing is a crucial component of the justice system as it ensures those on lower incomes receive help with paying their legal costs, and that those who can afford to contribute towards their legal costs do so.
The Government have today published its response to the consultation which reviewed the entire system of legal aid means testing. The comprehensive suite of changes we will now be implementing to civil and criminal legal aid means tests will significantly widen eligibility for legal aid and ensure continued access to justice.
Changes we will be making include:
Increasing income and capital thresholds for legal aid eligibility, so they better reflect essential living costs and different household compositions. This means that 3.5 million more people will be eligible for criminal legal aid in the magistrates court and 2.5 million more people will be eligible for civil legal aid.
Introducing a £500 per month earnings threshold for applicants in receipt of universal credit. If exceeded, applicants will need to complete a full income assessment in the same manner as applicants not in receipt of benefits. This replaces the interim position adopted in 2013, when universal credit roll-out began. This policy is designed to deliver fair eligibility according to applicants’ means, regardless of the source of those means.
Removing the upper income threshold for legal aid at the Crown court, meaning that all Crown court defendants will be eligible for legal aid. Those on higher incomes will be asked to pay more towards to their legal aid, ensuring taxpayer resources are directed at those most in need.
Excluding assets such as the family home from the means test where they are the subject matter of the case or where coercive control has denied applicants use of their shared marital assets, making it easier for domestic abuse victims to access legal aid.
Removing the means test for three areas of civil legal aid: civil representation for under-18s, civil representation for parents or those with parental responsibility facing the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from their child, and legal help for inquests involving a potential breach of rights under the ECHR (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998) or where there is likely to be a significant wider public interest in the individual being represented at the inquest.
The MTR will be implemented in phases. Phase 1 will deliver changes to non-means tested areas. The rest of the new civil means test will be implemented in phase 2, followed by the new criminal means tests in phases 3 and 4. Changes to the regulations will be laid in 2023-24, coming into force in 2025. This timeframe allows digital build and testing of the new assessments by the legal aid agency and legal aid providers.
This has been an open and collaborative review and we are grateful for the invaluable contribution of a wide range of interested parties throughout the consultation period and during the course of the review.
[HCWS809]
Woking Borough Council Intervention and Tees Valley Independent Review
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I would like to update the House on action the Government are taking in relation to two local authorities. In the case of Woking Council, Government are taking decisive action given clear evidence that the best interest of taxpayers is not being served. In the case of Tees Valley Combined Authority, in response to a request from the Mayor, the Secretary of State has decided on an exceptional basis to commission an external assurance review.
Woking Borough Council
Woking Borough Council is a small district that has engaged in commercial investment activities since 2016. As a result of this, as of December 2022 the council had debts of £1.9 billion, with plans to increase it to almost £2.4 billion by 2024-25, and now faces significant impairments against key assets. This makes Woking the most indebted council in England compared to its financial size, with a net budget of £24 million and core spending power of £14 million. In its most recent budget report Woking Borough Council recognises that this debt, and the council’s reliance on commercial income to fund services, places it in an extremely challenging financial position. The Department considers that this is, based on current evidence, the most challenging financial position of any local authority in England.
The Government is introducing new powers through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that will allow direct intervention where authorities are exposed to excessive risk from borrowing and investment practices. Ahead of that, since May last year, we have been engaging with Woking, given that it is likely to fall within scope of those powers. As a result of our engagement, the Department has been increasingly concerned about the level of risk the council is carrying and how that is being managed.
External assurance review
As a result of the Department’s concern about the specific situation in Woking, in January 2023 the Department commissioned an external assurance review covering the council’s governance, finance and commercial issues. This review was carried out by Jim Taylor, Carol Culley OBE and Mervyn Greer, with fieldwork taking place over January and February. The review team was asked to provide an external assessment of Woking’s governance arrangements, financial situation, commercial investments and their capacity and capability to manage these in the immediate and longer-term.
The council made the Department aware of further developments in its commercial and finance arrangements in April 2023, following which the Department requested that the review team undertake further fieldwork in April and May. The resulting report reflects all review work undertaken from January to May 2023 and will be published on gov.uk, and copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. This report has been redacted in places in light of the commercially sensitive nature of some of its contents. The full report, including the commercially sensitive information, has been considered by the Secretary of State in taking his decisions in relation to Woking.
Failure to comply with best value duty
Evidence within the review shows that Woking Borough Council is failing to comply with its best value duty to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, as required by the Local Government Act 1999. The financial challenge is acute, and the review has concluded that the Council cannot become financially self-sustaining without considerable Government support.
To quote the review:
“The scale of this issue is unprecedented.”
“From the historic base, the sheer scale and complexity of the investment and commercial activity of the council, means that the Council will never have the capacity to effectively manage all the commercial and economic considerations...”
“Commercially, the council is overstretched and remains reliant on further support in the form of additional skills and capacity to continue to find a resolvable solution to its commercial position.”
“There is no realistic route to the Council returning to financial sustainability alone... The Council will need to undertake significant service transformation and consider their future operating model.”
"The new leadership of the Council is taking the right steps. However, it does not have the capacity or capability to address a challenge of this scale without additional support...on the current trajectory the Council will not rectify these issues itself and will continue to fail its best value duty. The Council will require significant support, including statutory oversight.”
“There are critical decisions that need to be taken in the next 2-3 months, for which immediate expert support is required.” “...the financial issues are more severe and immediate than initially thought [when undertaking work in January and February]”
“...This leads to the conclusion that, despite many initiatives and advice being actioned there is no overarching strategy for the whole situation under the council’s control.”
In addition to the work of the reviewers, the Department has had direct engagement with Woking Borough Council in relation to its financial situation. It is the Department’s view that the council has failed to provide assurance that it is taking the necessary actions to comply with its best value duty and address the serious issues noted in the review. Nor has it given the Department assurance that it has capacity to take the necessary action, or develop an adequate strategy to resolve the situation, when considering the scale and pace of the response required.
The council is aware of the gravity of the situation and has made clear in published papers for its meeting on 23 February 2023 that it is at risk of issuing a section 114 notice, with public statements attributing this to issues relating to shortfalls in commercial income and cost pressures.
Statutory intervention in Woking
The Secretary of State is satisfied that Woking Borough Council is failing to comply with its best value duty. The Secretary of State considers it necessary to put in place an intervention package immediately, to secure the council’s future and sustainable compliance with its best value duty. The intervention will consist of the appointment of commissioners to oversee specific functions of the council, alongside directions to the council. The Secretary of State is confident that this package will address the failings identified, and is necessary for the council to secure compliance with its best value duty.
It is the Secretary of State’s view that the situation in Woking is sufficiently urgent to justify forgoing the usual period of representation. He considers that there is a pressing case for urgent Government action to protect the interests of the residents and taxpayers of Woking, and the public purse. The scale of Woking’s financial challenges is unprecedented, and we have serious concerns about its commercial arrangements; the Secretary of State is concerned that further evidence of failure could come to light imminently and require further immediate action. The appointment of commissioners and the directions set out below will therefore take effect from today.
Appointment of commissioners
The Secretary of State is appointing the following individuals as commissioners to exercise certain functions as required:
Jim Taylor (Lead Commissioner). Jim is an ex-chief executive officer of three metropolitan borough local authorities and was appointed in March 2022 by the Secretary of State as a commissioner at Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. He also conducted a governance review of Slough Borough Council for the Secretary of State in 2021.
Carol Culley OBE. Carol is the current deputy chief executive and section 151 officer at Manchester City Council. She is CIPFA Junior Vice President, a member of the CIPFA Council and Chair of the CIPFA Public Financial Board; and
Mervyn Greer. Mervyn is a Crown Representative at the Cabinet Office where, amongst other responsibilities for strategic suppliers to HMG, he is the appointed Crown Representative for Local Government Commercial and the LGA. His background is in property and built asset management in the private sector, where he was responsible for major outsourcing and property related commercial contracts. He retired from the private sector in 2016. He was a member of the team which conducted the statutory best value inspection of Liverpool City Council in 2021.
The Secretary of State has taken the unusual step of appointing the three individuals who carried out the external assurance review as commissioners. This reflects the acute situation in Woking, and the urgent need for commissioners to begin work immediately to ensure that the council takes steps to secure compliance with their best value duty. The Secretary of State considers that these individuals are best placed to take up these roles in the immediate term, due not only to the knowledge acquired during their time reviewing the council, but to their individual knowledge and experience in local authority leadership, governance, and commercial development. Our understanding of the situation in Woking is likely to change throughout the period of intervention. Their appointments are therefore for 12 months and will be reviewed within six months or at such a time as the Secretary of State determines necessary.
The scale of the financial challenge in Woking means that the council must take immediate steps to address its commercial and financial challenges, and to make transformative change across its entire operations. The commissioners will therefore exercise the following functions:
those associated with the source of Woking’s failures, financial governance and decision making, commercial decision making and management of commercial projects, regeneration and property;
those where the council will need to make changes as a result of these failures, functions associated with the council’s operating model and service redesign to achieve value for money and financial sustainability; and
those that will ensure the council has the right skills and structures to make ongoing improvements across the entire organisation, governance and scrutiny of strategic decisions; and the appointment, dismissal and performance management for senior and statutory officer positions.
Directions to Woking Borough Council
Alongside this, Woking Borough Council will be directed to prepare and agree an improvement and recovery plan to the satisfaction of commissioners. This must include, as a minimum, plans to:
achieve financial sustainability and reduce debt;
ensure value for money when exiting commercial arrangements;
ensure compliance with financial management rules and guidance;
reconfigure services; and
ensure the Council has the necessary skills, capabilities and capacity to carry out this work
and achieve compliance with their best value duty.
As with other interventions led by the Department, the council is directed to meet the costs of the commissioners. The fees paid to individuals are published in appointment letters which are available separately on gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise that is being brought, and the scale of the challenge in councils requiring statutory intervention.
The Government are committed to making sure the residents of Woking have what they need from their local council, including confidence in its service delivery, financial management and governance.
I will publish the directions and explanatory memorandum associated with this announcement on gov.uk, and place copies in the libraries of both Houses.
Independent review: Teesworks
Yesterday, the Secretary of State confirmed that he has made the exceptional decision to support the commissioning of an independent review to consider the specific allegations made, and Tees Valley Combined Authority’s oversight of the South Tees Development Corporation (STDC) and Teesworks joint venture.
The Tees Valley Mayor approached Government some time ago regarding the possibility of an independent review of STDC and Teesworks. He raised concerns regarding the allegations made in Parliament by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) of “dubious dealings” and “industrial-scale corruption”. The Mayor was, understandably, particularly concerned about the damaging effects that these allegations could have on investment and job creation across Teesside.
My colleague, the Minister for Levelling Up, explained in her letter of 17 May to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that the Department has so far seen no evidence of corruption, wrongdoing, or illegality. This is still the case.
The Secretary of State’s decision has been taken in response to Mayor Houchen’s previous request for an independent review to address these allegations and reflects his recognition that the continued allegations of “corruption” poses a real risk to the shared ambitions to deliver jobs and economic growth in Teesside.
In line with established practice, a review panel will be appointed by the Secretary of State to undertake the independent, external assurance review. The members of the panel will be announced shortly as will detailed terms of reference. Since serious allegations of corruption, wrongdoing and illegality have been made, I will ask the panel to address these accusations directly, and to report on the governance arrangements at STDC including how decisions are made, as well as looking at the value achieved for the investment of public money on the site.
The Secretary of State yesterday wrote to the Tees Valley Mayor explaining his decision, a copy of his letter has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. He also wrote to the Chairs of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Business and Trade Committees, and to the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Any interested party, including Members of Parliament, will be invited to make representations to the panel as part of their evidence gathering. The report and any recommendations will of course be published in line with usual practice.
[HCWS813]
Health Transformation Programme
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
I would like to update the House on the outcome of the procurement of new health and disability benefit assessment contracts—the Functional Assessment Services contracts—for the period 2024 to 2029. These important new contracts have been subject to a rigorous and competitive process in line with public contract regulations.
In the health and disability White Paper published in March, I set out the actions this Government will take to ensure disabled people, and people with health conditions, can lead independent lives and fulfil their potential: first, by reforming the benefits system for the future so it focuses on what people can do, rather than on what they cannot; secondly, by investing in our employment offer to help more disabled people and people with health conditions to start, stay and succeed in work; and thirdly, by ensuring people can access the right support at the right time and have a better overall experience when applying for, and receiving, health and disability benefits.
To support these important commitments, the Health Transformation Programme is modernising benefit services to vastly improve the claimant experience, build trust in our services and the decisions we make, and create a more efficient service for taxpayers. As part of this, the programme will deliver improvements I announced through the White Paper.
The Health Transformation Programme is developing a new Health Assessment Service and transforming the entire Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Service, over the longer term. The Health Assessment Service is being developed on a small scale initially and will gradually replace the different services we and our assessment providers use to undertake health assessments across all benefits. It will be fully integrated with other systems, including the transformed PIP Service, with the aim of creating a much-improved experience for people who apply for support. The Functional Assessment Services contracts will provide the foundation for the new Health Assessment Service, replacing the separate contracts for health and disability assessment services and PIP assessments with single contracts for all assessments in a geographic area. The contracts will ensure continuity of service for claimants while we safely develop the new Health Assessment Service and provide the flexibility to introduce it gradually before we roll it out nationally from 2029.
We have informed bidders that the successful bidders in each geographic lot are as follows:
Lot 1 (North England and Scotland): Maximus UK Services Limited
Lot 2 (Midlands and Wales): Capita Business Services Limited
Lot 4 (South East England, London and East Anglia): Ingeus UK Limited
Lot 5 (Northern Ireland): Capita Business Services Limited
Procurement activity in Lot 3 (South West England) is continuing and we will announce the outcome in due course.
We will work with providers to ensure that the transition to the new service is as smooth as possible. We will also work with the Functional Assessment Services providers to deliver structural reform, removing the work capability assessment via a phased approach over the lifetime of the contracts, as announced in the White Paper.
This represents a positive step forward in delivering our ambitions for disabled people and people with health conditions. It shows that this Government are committed to delivering a more effective health and disability system for people now and in the future.
[HCWS807]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bell rings and resume after 10 minutes.
Imprisonment for Public Protection Action Plan
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what additional resources will be made available to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to secure timely delivery of the Imprisonment for Public Protection Action Plan, published on 26 April.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I do not propose to rehearse the history of this sentence, which is well known to most of the participants in the Room. This is an opportunity to look forward rather than back. To summarise the basic facts, there are 2,892 IPP prisoners in prison; 1,498 of them are on remand, 1,394 have never been released and nearly all of them have served their minimum term—in many cases well over it. The difficulty of completing the hurdles required for progression to release, a lengthy 10-year statutory parole period and the ease with which one can be yanked back into the prison system have made this scandal both intractable for the authorities and a continuing mental torture for the prisoners and their families.
Hence the optimism when the Justice Select Committee in another place produced its courageous and morally unarguable report last year, drawing attention to the scandal and the suffering, and recommending some clear ways of cutting this Gordian knot through resentencing. The Government’s rejection of that was perhaps not unexpected by some—it was not unexpected by me, to be perfectly honest—but it has had a devastating effect on the mental health of prisoners and their families alike. One of the most dangerous things here is raising hopes only to see them dashed.
Instead, the Government have offered an action plan by way of response to the committee’s report. I think this is your Lordships’ first opportunity to review and consider that action plan. What can one say about it? First, it is a welcome advance on the previous action plan, which consisted of two sides of paper. This at least is a serious effort and it has a great deal of detail. Secondly, it does have a plan, and a timetable. Both those things are very much to be welcomed. Thirdly, I know from ministerial assurances that its implementation has been entrusted to competent and experienced civil servants. I welcome that and have confidence in them.
However, it is yet to be seen whether the plan is the transformative approach we are looking for that will help to resolve this issue. First, the plan fails to acknowledge the injustice lying at the heart of this problem. The Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor—the new one—appears to be moving in that direction. In the other place recently in debate on the victims Bill, he referred to the IPP regime as a “stain”, possibly echoing comments previously made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. In a letter I have recently seen he refers to it as an iniquity. These are new terms; this is new language that we have not heard from the Ministry of Justice in the past. It is wholly welcome that the acknowledgement of the injustice is coming from the Secretary of State, but is it properly reflected in the action plan, which, it must be said, was prepared before he came into office, although he signed it off? Does the action plan still read too much like an administrative task, rather than what it should be: a morally based mission?
Secondly, the action plan fails to respond fully to what we know are the challenges faced by prisoners who are out on parole. One cannot overestimate the fragility of a person who has to carry the difficulty of rebuilding their life while on parole for a lengthy 10-year period—set by statute as a minimum, despite our efforts in this House to have it reduced when we considered the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill a year or two ago—constantly under threat of being pulled back into jail for what is, in effect, a life sentence. You would have to be a very strong person indeed to be able to live with that and make your life work well.
Other comments could be made about the action plan, but my final point is that it implicitly assumes that prisoners will engage with the new approach rationally and in good faith. The sad fact of the matter is that prisoners have lost their faith in the system. It requires a great deal more than simply turning up and saying, “It’s all different now, and we’re going to make it work”. One has to understand that these people are very fragile and damaged. The plan does not acknowledge that or coherently think about how to approach and engage with them, or indeed with their families, who are potentially a very important part of helping to resolve this issue.
Before I finish, I will say a few words about mental health. As a result of being involved in this over the last six to eight months, I have got to know psychologists working in the field. Some of them have approached me, and I have got involved. Previously, I did not have those contacts, and it is worth repeating a few of the things that they say.
The first is to emphasise that these prisoners are damaged people. Secondly, as was identified in the Justice Select Committee’s report, they have a tendency to hide that damage because they know that if they admit to mental health problems it makes it more difficult for them to get their parole. Therefore, they tend to hide it rather than look for treatment and support. Many of them are constantly on the verge of suicide and self-harm. I understand that there have been at least three suicides since the Secretary of State rejected the resentencing proposal and that, in general, the rate of suicide among IPP prisoners is double that of the normal prison population.
These things need to be borne in mind as examples of completely understandable suffering. One psychologist commented that these prisoners now think in the same way as somebody who has been sentenced wrongly, for a crime they did not commit. It is important to unpackage that: they all acknowledge that they have been sentenced for a crime they did commit and that they should do time in jail, but the fact that that time never seems to come to an end puts them in the same mental place as prisoners who have been wrongly convicted. That is not a good place to be if you are in prison. It is much better to be there knowing that you did something wrong and acknowledging that you have to pay the penalty but knowing that you will leave in due course when that penalty has been paid. They are in great difficulty.
I would like to see, and hear from my noble and learned friend when he speaks at the end, how the action plan could be improved by, first, a sense of the scandal, urgency and harm that underlie the problem, rather than it being purely administrative. I would like to see a credible plan to remove the obstacles for those in prison to complete the progression steps that they have to in order to qualify for parole and release into the community. I would like to see a radical reduction in the parole period and, most importantly, resources and support given to the parole service. That has always been the Cinderella of this problem and, without proper resources, the parole service will not be maintained.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on obtaining this short debate, and thank him for the tenacity that he has shown in continuing to harry and expose a situation that we all accept as disastrous. I would also like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, on obtaining the Question this morning. It is important to continue to have a laser-like focus on what is happening to those prisoners who are still experiencing incarceration or the trauma—because it is trauma—of being under the present licensing scheme.
I hope the Minister will appreciate it when I say how much I value that he is always prepared to listen and respond. If he and his opposite number can work with the new Secretary of State, we might just begin to get somewhere. The Secretary of State, who I welcome as the new Lord Chancellor, sent me a very helpful letter recently, in which he described what would happen on the back of the establishment of the progression board and the external stakeholder reference group. This group will consist of a range of interests from outside the Ministry of Justice, including the independent monitoring board. I pay tribute to the unsung, unpaid people who give their time to go into prison, as I experienced in the Easter break when I spent a day in a prison in Yorkshire. They deserve great credit. If this stakeholder reference group is to be of any value, it should meet more than twice a year, which is the current proposition. There should be a very clear line and relationship between the progression board and the work that Chris Jennings—who I also welcome—will lead to make the action plan a reality. The time lags that are built in at the moment are of deep concern.
To save time, I will write separately to the Minister about the Question this morning. Understandably, given my responsibility for some of this, many IPP prisoners are in touch with me. I will communicate with the Minister about David Richardson and Geoffrey Boston; they have found themselves caught up in this terrible spider’s web. It is acknowledged that they are in need of open prison conditions to prepare them for release, but this is being blocked by the Ministry of Justice. Thomas Wallace, who has been in touch with me, is in the erroneous situation of finding even greater restrictions and requirements placed on him now that he is on licence, even though he has been out for a long time and, according to him, has not committed any offence or breach. Difficult as it is for the probation service, with the trauma of the history that we all know about over the last 10 years, part of the action plan will have to look seriously at how it is performing.
The Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee, on which I serve, is undertaking a review of community orders. As part of that, the revelations about the underfunding and real difficulties of the probation service—including the challenge of recruitment now that resource is being put in—have been quite staggering. We need to take seriously how we help the probation service to fulfil its crucial role in carrying through the action plan. The plan will not work unless it does so. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out, it will be crucial that the probation service understands what is happening to those in its care, including those who are on licence and licence conditions.
Yes, we need more resource for the Parole Board, but we need also to determine the line of approach once someone is out of prison and how we can engage the voluntary and community sector. Many have written to us ahead of today, because every time there is a Question for Short Debate or a Question people quite rightly home in on what we are talking about. The evidence base that is now being collected, including from psychologists and forensic psychiatrists, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to, is crucial in getting the new Secretary of State to be able to address where we go from here. He said on the Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill that has already been referred to:
“I am considering carefully what the Justice Committee has to say about it”—
“it” obviously being IPP—
“and I will be saying more about it in due course”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/05/23; col. 592.]
I hope that “more about it” means to help us all to find a solution.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege as ever to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. There is so much one could say in this debate and so little time to say it. I shall focus solely on the burden of proof. This is far from just a snapping up of unconsidered trifles; it is really important.
We all know that the injustices of the IPP regime have long since reached scandal or crisis levels, but we all know too the political difficulties confronting a Minister newly in post who is facing an election next year where both main parties appear to be vying to be toughest on law and order. I fully support the projected resentencing proposal in the Commons report, but meantime, and altogether less politically problematic, we should recall that over 10 years after Section 128 of LASPO was included precisely for this situation, it remains unused. Surely at the very least a Section 128 ministerial order should now be made, at last reversing the burden of proof as to future dangerousness when the Parole Board considers release.
This would have several benefits. First, it would be easier for the Minister to introduce such an order than having to promote primary legislation. Secondly, it would counteract the Parole Board’s present risk-averse approach, encouraged—indeed, recently required—by Mr Raab’s insistence on supposed “public protection” at the expense of all else. With the burden reversed—a burden repeatedly said by Ken Clarke, Matthew Parris and others to be effectively impossible for the prisoner to discharge—the Parole Board need not be so defensive. If an IPP prisoner were to reoffend after release, the board would simply point out that the evidence of serious future risk relied on by the department was insufficient to justify further detention.
Thirdly, under this proposal there would be no question of sudden multiple releases. The new approach would take effect as and when individual IPP prisoners come up for Parole Board review. This consideration, too, should help the Minister. I urge our new Secretary of State for Justice to go at least this far as soon as possible.
As I have a moment left of my time, I will use it to urge the new Minister, of whom I hear nothing but good, to focus yet further on the immense and still-growing iniquities of the whole IPP scheme. These I believe to be incurable simply by improving yet again earlier versions of the action plan. The Minister must do what Sir Robert Neill and his committee urged last year.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his tenacity and for keeping this terrible situation before us. I rise with a certain reluctance because I do not have the expertise that many other noble Lords in this debate have, though like all bishops I have a right to visit the prisons in my diocese, which I do, and I am regularly in touch with people working in the legal and penal systems. My colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, the lead bishop on prisons, has raised this matter on numerous occasions and sadly cannot be here today.
It is now seven months since the House of Commons Justice Select Committee issued its report on IPP sentences. There were some alarming conclusions in it, such as noting:
“The indefinite nature of the sentence has contributed to feelings of hopelessness and despair”,
leading to some suicides within the IPP population. There are reports that perhaps as many as 81 people have taken their own life when serving an IPP sentence. If we could identify in any other area of life that 81 lives had been taken, we would be calling for inquiries and wanting answers. Many of us are concerned to hear of further, more recent suicides.
It seems it is the very nature of these sentences that contributes to the hopelessness—sentences where there is no end in sight and where people are uncertain about the necessary threshold for return to prison. As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, many are fearful that even speaking about their mental health to a professional—the very person to whom they would be looking to get support and treatment—could be used as further evidence against them towards continued imprisonment.
One of the promises of the new IPP action plan is to introduce further measures to ensure that individualised support is available for each offender. One recommendation from the Justice Select Committee that I would like to draw attention to is the Parole Board’s agreement to review the listings priority framework in the light of IPP prisoners. These prisoners are stuck with incredibly long waiting times and what the committee calls an “ineffective” parole process stemming from chronic underresourcing. Will the Minister be able to update us on this review?
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, so rightly remarked two years ago, IPP sentences are the greatest single stain on the justice system. The suggestion that a person can, at a moment’s notice, be arbitrarily recalled to prison without having committed any further crimes is surely fundamentally opposed to natural justice and can have no place in our legal system. We often talk about our legal system in this country being a beacon; this surely brings that into question. The IPP action plan serves only to prolong an unjust legal mechanism, one that has been widely condemned by campaigners, charities, and psychiatrists and psychologists, and is contributing to self-harm and suicide. It is an affront to our legal values.
The solution recommended by the Justice Select Committee is a resentencing exercise where prisoners can be given a sentence appropriate for their crime. If we cannot do that, I hope that the Minister and his advisers will look closely at the need to find some other mechanism to address this terrible problem as quickly as possible and to give people fair sentences for their crimes but, once they have served them, to allow them to be released back into society.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow the right reverend Prelate. Like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his concern about this issue and congratulate him on securing this short debate. As many noble Lords will know, my background is not in law or the justice system, but I am profoundly concerned by injustice. That IPPs have been described by the Justice Minister in another place, to quote the noble Lord, as a “stain” on our justice system has both caught my interest and provoked me to speak in this debate. I am grateful for all the briefings that I have received from the Prison Reform Trust, the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, UNGRIPP, the independent monitoring boards and, of course, the House of Lords briefing. I was struck particularly by the bald statement in the House of Commons Justice Committee report, which said:
“Whilst there have been some efforts made in the last 10 years to reduce the IPP prison population … not enough has been done”.
I think that focuses our minds on the urgency with which we now need to address this matter.
The report goes on to identify a number of issues—I shall speak to just three. One is the psychological harm caused by the indefinite nature of the sentence. The Prison Reform Trust reports that
“self-harm amongst IPP prisoners is twice that of those serving a life sentence”
and that nine self-inflicted deaths in 2022 was the highest number in a single year since the sentence was introduced. I began to understand this when I read the numbers, as cited by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: 46% of the people held have been held for 10 years or more beyond their original tariff—no one can imagine that that is justice.
A second area of concern is the limited availability of appropriate courses for IPP prisoners. This seems to amount to a dereliction of duty. If the Parole Board needs to see evidence of a course to address offending behaviour before considering release on licence but no course is available, that must aggravate the deep-seated hopelessness that many IPP prisoners feel. I therefore ask the Minister specifically in relation to those courses what resource would be needed to facilitate access for all IPP prisoners and how the Government propose to provide that. Frankly, it is hard to see how the IPP plan can be accomplished without the necessary resources.
On a related matter, I have now developed a significant interest in education in prisons in a general sense. Although educational courses are not a necessary precursor to release, as I understand it from the Prison Reform Trust, it is clear that interest in and engagement with education by IPP prisoners are taken into account. Therefore, if they cannot access those courses, or if they are moved as the courses are going on and cannot pick them up, that is clearly a significant issue too.
The issue of resources within the probation service is also significant. The Commons Justice Committee found that a lack of resources leads to an ineffective parole system and described it as a “significant barrier” to release.
I believe that there is significant cross-party support for an action plan if it can be shown to deliver real change, of which the Justice Minister spoke on 26 April this year. Can the Minister say how His Majesty’s Government plan to implement principle 2 of the updated IPP plan, which is that:
“HMPPS ensures that those serving an IPP sentence have a sentence plan specifying the required interventions to reduce risk and has access to them”?
Might the deadline for this be the same as the June 2023 deadline for identifying funding streams for expanded psychology services provision in the community?
In conclusion, I was going to ask the Minister about transfer to open provision, but I understand that there was a Question on that this morning while I was in a committee. I will certainly read Hansard to see what the Minister had to say. I am bound to say that I am advised by the Prison Reform Trust that the change to criteria has had a significantly negative impact on IPP prisoners. If the Minister has time, could he say anything further about the transfer to open prison?
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on securing this debate. The Government’s response and action plan are
“as shoddy a response as I have ever seen to a Select Committee report”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/23; col. 444WH.]
Those are not my words but those of Sir Bob Neill, the Conservative chair of the Justice Select Committee, which produced the original report.
I was delighted with the JSC’s report. It was thorough, facts-based and bold. To use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, it was moral. It really took care to think about the people it was talking about. As we know, the main recommendation was to conduct a resentencing exercise, informed by an expert panel, to end the mental torment that IPP prisoners face. Sir Bob said that resentencing would
“give certainty to everybody and give hope”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/23; col. 605.]
Within the first four weeks since the publication of the Government’s response, three IPP prisoners have already committed suicide. We have heard about the mental fragility from which these people are suffering. I am not saying that the publication of the response caused these deaths directly, but it has certainly done nothing to lift the general feeling of hopelessness. Nothing has been done to stem the increasing self-harm, suicide and deteriorating mental health of this cohort.
Amazingly, there is no acknowledgement throughout the whole government response of the damage being done to these prisoners—the whole system is conspiring to make them less able to achieve release and make a success of their lives, if and when they are eventually released. I am tired of making the same depressing points, both in debates and during the passage of the police Bill. Is it not the truth that there are no votes in making the lives of IPP prisoners possible, or in giving them justice, hope and an end in sight?
My noble friend Lord McNally commented during the police Bill that the progress of IPP prisoners was being foiled by a series of Catch-22s. Catch-22 was read recently on the radio. The main character, Yossarian, is an American World War II fighter pilot. Every time he reaches his target number of missions to be allowed home, the target is increased or the rules are changed. When he feigns insanity, he makes the mistake of saying that he does not want to die. He is declared sane because that is the decision of a sane man.
The Catch-22 for IPP prisoners works like this. We set out a route for IPP prisoners to work towards release and then we block the path. We say that they need to attend various courses, then we ensure that those courses are either rare or not available at all. We do not put the resources in to provide a path to jump through the hoops that we set. We make them wait endlessly for Parole Board hearings and, of course, we do not give the Parole Board the resources to do its job in a timely and effective manner. We give these prisoners a possible route out through open conditions. When, against the odds, the Parole Board recommends them for open conditions, the Secretary of State blocks their path. I asked the Minister earlier why currently fewer than one in six Parole Board recommendations for transfer to open conditions go through. Apparently, the Secretary of State can do what he likes and override the Parole Board, even if it deems a prisoner fit.
The final Catch 22, and arguably the cruellest, is that when we finally release a prisoner, having not prepared them properly, with insufficient resources, we expect them to instantly behave as law-abiding citizens after all they have been through. And, need you ask, we have underfunded the probation service so they cannot properly be supervised, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, mentioned. Any infringement of parole terms, such as loss of accommodation, attracts a recall, so we put them and their families through it all again. It is a bit like a cat playing with a mouse—or, as the JSC calls it, the “recall merry-go-round”. It is not so merry for the victims and their families.
My rant over, I have two questions for the Minister, who I know does care. I expect he will not be able to answer them both. I would love to know, under this excuse for an action plan, how long the Government think it could be before the last IPP prisoner changes their status to release or other circumstances under the current rules. I know the Minister cares but I suspect that his political masters do not. I bet he will also not be able to tell me what additional finite resources will be devoted to enacting this plan, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, asked. Without resources, nothing will change, and the Catch 22 will continue for ever.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. I know that she has spent considerable time campaigning on this issue, and I agree with many of the important points that she made. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on this Question for Short Debate. To take up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, needs to be congratulated because this is one of those issues that you hear being debated with people making all sorts of irrational comments. It is important that we have tried to discuss this in a calm and measured way. One hopes that quicker progress can be made through the action plan that the Government have put forward.
To take up my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s comments, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I see some hope in what seems to be a change of attitude by the Secretary of State. That gives us some expectation that things will change. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out, the use of words such as “stain” and “iniquity” signifies a change of approach, and one hopes that, as a result, some of the concerns laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, will be addressed.
The challenge for the Minister is that the action plan has to be actioned—that is the key point about it—otherwise it is a good action plan that we all agree with, but what difference will it have made? It is the famous “So what?” question. My noble friend Lord Blunkett said that he will write to the Minister and make some points. It would be interesting to see them; if appropriate, perhaps we could see that correspondence and the Minister’s answers.
Countless testimonies and studies have shown the link between serving an IPP sentence and deteriorating mental health, self-harm and suicide. As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, 81 IPP prisoners have taken their own lives while in prison. In 2022 alone, there were nine suicides—the highest number in any year since IPPs were introduced. Does the Minister agree with the Royal College of Psychiatrists that
“Mental Health services in prison are not equipped to manage the complexities of many of those subject to IPP in prison and additional resource and development of expertise is needed”?
Can the Minister outline what action is being taken to deal with these mental health problems?
Alongside that, as the Chief Inspector of Probation outlined, most recalls to prison arise from non-compliance with licence conditions rather than from new crimes. Non-compliance often results from homelessness, a relapse into substance or other misuse, and a lack of continuity of care between pre-release and post-release service provision. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, made the point that, in short, failing services are leading to unsuccessful licences. This means that we are setting up too many IPP prisoners to fail. They return to custody in a system that sets them goals that it does not then allow them to meet. Will the Minister commit to accept recommendations from the forthcoming inspection of recalls that stress the need for proportionality and attention solely to serious risks in making recall decisions?
We have to also recognise—again, other noble Lords have raised these points—that problems lie not just with IPPs. Even if individuals on IPP sentences are eventually released on licence by a Parole Board, to keep us safe we still rely on a functioning probation system to ensure that those individuals comply with their licence conditions and do not lapse back into the behaviours that made them a risk originally. Could the Minister comment on how the action plan will help ensure that the probation system functions in a way that supports IPP prisoners?
The statistics that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, read out at the beginning were stark and deserve repetition. Some 2,892 people are still subject to the IPP regime; 1,394 have never been released, and 1,498 are on remand. It is no wonder the Secretary of State called this a “stain” on our justice system. Something certainly needs to be done.
Importantly, in reference to the point from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, I note that the discussion about IPPs often takes place with respect to public protection. All of us agree that there is a need to consider public protection; it would be ludicrous to say that it is not an important consideration. However, as my noble friend Lady Blower and other noble Lords mentioned, this country is about justice and a system that works and is consistent with the values of our democracy and country. It is right to say that the public need to be protected in this situation, but individuals, however difficult their crimes are, also deserve justice. As such, there needs to be reform and change quickly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I very much thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his opening remarks and for securing this debate, and all noble Lords who have spoken. As some of your Lordships know, I have met a number of you already and my friend, the right honourable Damian Hinds, the relevant Minister in the Commons, and I recently met the families and explained the Government’s reasons for proceeding with the action plan.
First, to restate the problem, IPP prisoners who have never been released have all, without exception, come before the Parole Board, which has been unable to say that they are safe to release. That is the essential stumbling block with which the Government and previous Governments have been struggling. The question is what to do about it.
As far as the resentencing exercise is concerned, as I think I have explained on a previous occasion, the Government’s position is that most of the relevant prisoners have already served a sentence, so on what basis exactly can one resentence such a person? What one is really doing is looking to find a way to release, or to improve the prospects of release for, the individuals concerned, and/or—as has been rightly pointed out—to address the problem of recall. Quite a lot of these prisoners have been released but found themselves being recalled for one reason or another.
With the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate, there is no evidence that these recalls are arbitrary; they are for the breach of licence conditions. It may well be that there are some licence conditions that are difficult to comply with, or that the individuals themselves find it difficult to comply with; that, therefore, is something to be looked at. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has just remarked, the Chief Inspector of Probation is about to investigate in detail the processes of recall to see whether this is being done properly and proportionately. That is a very important new element of the situation.
I respectfully suggest that the action plan is a very important step forward and another new element. The essential purpose of the action plan is exactly the purpose that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, referred to, which is to break the Catch-22. How will we go about breaking the Catch-22? This is a shared problem. The Government are not trying to reserve the problem to themselves; it is a problem that every noble Lord and every member of the community can make an important contribution to. That is why, among other things, we have included an external stakeholder group in the arrangements, and why the Government have committed to publishing regularly information on its progress, so that everybody can see the data—data is a pretty important part of this—and the whole process can be put under the spotlight. That is what needs to happen: this issue needs to come up the agenda and be put under the spotlight.
Just for a moment, I shall record some aspects of the action plan, so that they are on the record. First, we have something we have never had before: a senior IPP progression board chaired by Mr Jennings, to whom reference has already been made, who is a most dedicated civil servant. That board is to drive forward measures in this area.
There are four basic principles set out in the plan; we have all read it, so I will not spend time reproducing them. There are success measures. There are six workstreams, two of which—I think workstreams 3 and 4—will in due course try to deal with the futility of the prisoners and the feelings of hopelessness that have been mentioned; to deal with the mental health issues, as there are quite a number of references to psychologists and so forth, and one is aware of the views of the Royal College in that respect; and to make a real, effective, tangible change.
The plan also extends, of course, to the community. Progression panels are being established in the community for each prisoner, in addition to their bespoke sentence plan, to give everybody a reasonable chance of getting through what is a very difficult situation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, rightly said, no responsible Government can ignore the need for public protection. That has to be borne in mind. I have to record—I make no apology for doing so—that this is yet another debate in your Lordships’ Committee where no one has used the word “victim”. Victims and potential victims have to be borne in mind as well, so one is struggling to find a balance in what is an intractable and difficult historical situation.
It is quite difficult at the moment to put flesh on the plan, as I think my noble friend Lord Moylan was asking us to do—has it taken account of this and has it taken account of that? Such points will of course be fed back. As the board takes control and drives this forward, I have every reason to hope and believe that all the points that have been made by your Lordships today will be taken into account. This is a very important advance. It will be driven by competent and experienced civil servants, and I would ask your Lordships to judge us by results. We do not have any results yet because it has only just started, but it is intended to respond to the very special situation where people have possibly lost faith in the system, are fragile and need special attention. I hope that will be delivered.
It is perfectly true that there have been staff shortages in the probation service. We have recruited some 4,000 new probation officers during the last three years—1,500 in the last full year. We have to make sure that the action plan adapts to those resources. There will be a review by the IPP progression panels, which we have directed largely to prisoners in the community.
I take very much to heart the opening comment from my noble friend Lord Moylan that it would be quite wrong to raise hopes only to see them dashed. However, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that the Victims and Prisoners Bill will come before the House, so I anticipate that this is not the last debate that we will have on this subject. I would personally be very open, as I am sure would be the Government, to serious and concrete suggestions for a further look at, or even reform of, the structure that we have at the moment. That is something that any responsible Government should continue to consider. I hope that the forthcoming Bill will be an occasion for further debate. To touch on one point made by my noble friend Lord Moylan, in the Government’s view this is in part a moral issue, and I think the supervisory board will also have that well in mind under the action plan.
I am afraid that I cannot answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, as to how long it will be before the last IPP prisoner is released, nor can I say at the moment, or quantify, what kind of additional finance in due course might be devoted to this problem. I can say—as I hope I have tried to illustrate—that the whole issue is very much on the radar. Obviously, from any Government’s point of view, nobody wants to keep anybody in prison unnecessarily—it is going to be expensive; no one wants to recall people unnecessarily. The strain on the probation service of dealing with all this is already pretty heavy, so if we can lighten that strain and reduce the general burden, and find ways in which people can break this Catch-22 and make their way successfully through the system, that is the Government’s objective.
I am conscious that I may have not responded to every point that has been made. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, that I am afraid I cannot accept that the report is shoddy. Enormous effort has gone into this and will go into this. Your Lordships have my personal assurance that the Secretary of State and relevant Ministers will continue to drive this forward. Let us look forward. I would not say that this is the end of the story, and I am sure there will be opportunities for further reflection and debate when the forthcoming Victims and Prisoners Bill reaches this House.
Forgive me if I have not answered all questions; I shall write to anyone who would like a further answer than I have been able to give today. I thank noble Lords for their attention.
Woodland Cover Protection and Grey Squirrel Control
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Redesdale
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking (1) to promote and protect woodland cover, and (2) to control grey squirrels.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords for taking part in this debate just before recess, when everybody is keen to get away. But the number of speakers, and the short time that each then has to speak, shows that a lot of people take this issue very seriously.
I must declare an interest: I am probably one of the few people left in England who has a population of red squirrels but, unfortunately, the grey squirrels are getting quite close. I am not sure how long we will be able to keep them out for.
I will end my speech with two asks of the Government—I am sure that neither will surprise the Minister—to do with grey squirrel control. But I will start on woodland. On an optimistic note, we have an increasing amount of woodland coverage in the country. However, this growth has been caused by increased plantations, mostly of pine, and the Woodland Trust has raised the issue of the falling biodiversity we have in the country because of the threat to our native plantations and a fall in the amount of native trees. The Government have set out plans to increase the amount of native woodland plantations; however, as we have been discussing on the formation of ELMS and other biodiversity schemes, it is very difficult to replant native woodland because of long-term issues. When the grant scheme runs out, how will we create the financial mechanisms to make sure that land taken away from agricultural purposes is maintained?
There are a number of threats to woodland at the moment. One of the main ones is disease. I know that other noble Lords will discuss this, so I will confine my comments to ash dieback. Through a survey of my woodland and from driving throughout Northumberland, I can see that ash dieback has spread throughout the county and that the ash tree will become extinct in the UK in five to 10 years. It is a pernicious disease, because trees still grow with it but, once they have the disease, it is only a matter of time before they die through stress.
I have started planting sycamore instead of ash, because it is fast-growing. I have never understood why people have views against sycamore, because it carries a great deal of biodiversity, but one problem is that grey squirrels particularly like killing sycamore through its bark.
Secondly, climate change brings about stress, especially in the droughts we are facing. Storm Arwen apparently took out 16 million trees and affected about 8,000 hectares of woodland. It did so much damage because the storm came from the north, but trees have grown root systems that stop westerly winds. I have been cutting up very old trees that survived storms in the past but have no root system to provide for storms from the north. This issue will occur more and more because of climate change.
The third issue is grey squirrels. I have spent a number of years battling grey squirrels and set up the Red Squirrel Protection Partnership. I originally wanted to call it the Grey Squirrel Annihilation League but, for PR reasons, that would apparently be a bad idea. I set up the partnership and managed to achieve a £150,000 grant from Defra. I was encouraged not to use the words “killing squirrels” in the application, so the application was actually for a farm diversification fund with a lot of columns saying, “What’s the output?” The only thing I could put was “dead squirrels”, so it was a rather odd form.
I managed to achieve the grant. There was a great deal of publicity about it when I got it. One way I managed to make it a popular issue was by pointing out that people eat squirrel, turning it from killing small fluffy animals into a foodie argument. The one thing people in Britain will not argue with is foodies. However, I pointed out in some interviews that if squirrels are to be sold by butchers there must be a sticker saying “May contain nuts”. I did that as a joke, but—
Lord Redesdale (LD)
Well, there is a danger of anaphylactic shock from a creature whose main food source is nuts.
We did this work through trapping. I had a fantastic Geordie, Mr Paul Parker, who knew more about grey squirrels than anybody at the end of the period. He was extremely successful. However, trapping is incredibly labour-intensive. We started off with live trapping and then moved to kill traps. You have to check the traps once a day to make sure that squirrels have not been trapped and are still alive. We expanded throughout Northumberland. At one point we had 900 trapping sites and over 200 volunteers, mostly elderly pensioners who would look out of the window and tell us when the traps had gone off.
There was an enormous support for this, and we did clear areas of grey squirrels. We could tell that we had done so because red squirrels recolonised areas that had been colonised by greys. Grey squirrels are larger than red squirrels and push them out of areas, so if you have reds it is a clear indicator that you do not have greys.
The problem we face is that there are about 2.7 million grey squirrels in this country. Trapping could be effective, but it is a landscape issue. You have to work incredibly hard at it. Some squirrels were breeding up to four times a year. We caught pregnant grey squirrels in December and January. The number of squirrels that can repopulate an area if you do not manage to completely clear a population is amazing.
Although trapping is very useful in a localised area, we have to look at other methods in the long term. The problem is that, with 2.7 million squirrels, we are looking at the landscape changing in the long term, because tree cover will change. As the Minister pointed out about planting, certain types of tree will not survive past 20 or 30 years—we will not see those mature trees.
The bright spot is that two new technologies are coming forward. The first is contraception. I know that this has been pushed by a number of organisations that are part of the UK Squirrel Accord. The work on that is excellent. The real value of it is that, unlike trapping, where you have to monitor traps continuously, you could provide the contraceptive over two or three days, three times a year, which would have a massive effect and could crash squirrel numbers. That work is very important. One of my first asks of the Minister is that I hope Defra will come up with some more funding to push this process further, because it looks like the technology works very well. It is now a question of making sure it goes forward and can be distributed.
I am particularly excited about the second technology, which is being pushed by the European Squirrel Initiative, which is gene drive technology. I was told that I had to be very careful about the use of terminology, because it is not gene editing; it is a form of bioengineering whereby the squirrels’ reproductive cycle can be changed so that the squirrels introduced into the population breed only one sex. Therefore, you can change it so that only male squirrels are born. Of course, the lack of females will have an effect on the population. The work we did in Northumberland showed that squirrels are remarkably territorial. Therefore, squirrels that do not breed are far stronger than squirrels that do, and will push squirrels that can breed further out of the best population areas. This is an amazing piece of work that will take about eight to 10 years to perfect and then, of course, probably another eight to 10 years.
What is amazing about this technology is that in theory we could wipe grey squirrels from the country in a humane way without killing any, doing so in a safe way because the editing could have a cut-off point so that, after a number of generations, you would have to reintroduce the control. That would be a fabulous outcome, but it will need quite a lot of research. I know that the Minister has met Professor Bruce Whitelaw from the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh. My second ask is exactly the same as my first. This could be fabulous if the money were available and that is an issue for Defra. However, squirrels are costing us many millions of pounds a year and this would be an excellent return on investment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for initiating this important debate.
If we want to promote and protect our woodlands, we need to get much better at forestry in this country. I have said many times that we are overall pretty bad at it. Most of our woodlands are in poor condition and not managed to the proper standard. Our foresters need much better training, especially for continuous cover, which is something that I have been promoting in this House for over 50 years—I hope that its time has come.
The control of grey squirrels should be grant funded, given their impact on the delivery of key ecosystems and services such as carbon sequestration budgets and biodiversity, as well as the loss of timbers. However, grey squirrels are not the only problem and I want to focus on some of the others.
Forestry is not easy. It is easy to say, “Let’s plant more trees”, but it is a jolly sight more difficult to do that in reality. Besides grey squirrels, there are deer and, of our six species, every single one is destructive. At over 1.5 billion deer, there are far too many in this country. They cause an estimated 74,000 car accidents a year, costing £10 million in car repairs alone. Deer kill about 20 people a year and there has been no decline in human injuries in the last 20 years. The sadness is that any deer involved in a car accident will probably die a long, lingering death well away from the scene of the accident.
Those are not all the problems; there are others. I have a list of at least 25 pests or diseases, either in this country or on our doorstep, attacking every single one of our native trees: oak, ash, birch, chestnut, spruce, pine—the list could go on. In fact, one could get quite depressed about forestry, but one needs to look at it more positively.
I turn to hedgerows. I plead with the Minister to include hedgerows in the ambit of woodland. Hedgerows absorb 30 to 80 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare. The Government need to encourage farmers to have taller and wider hedgerows. The Wildlife Conservation Trust estimates that, if a farmer planted a tree every 20 metres in half the hedgerows in this country, we would plant another 14 million new trees. Farmers need to be encouraged but also their tenancies need to be looked at, because by and large with tenancies any timber is reserved to the landlord.
Those would be amenity trees but I also have a concern about commercial timber. We have a conflict between the area where commercial timber can be grown and where ground-nesting birds are, particularly species on the red list such as curlew and black grouse. Science has clearly told us that there is an increase of predation for any ground-nesting bird within woodland. It is not only about predation; there is fragmentation of the breeding sites as we plant more and more timber. As I said about chalk streams, it is about a balance in the environment. The Minister has a heck of a job to keep everyone happy, because there will always be at least one NGO that will complain.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as chair of the UK Squirrel Accord. I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on his excellent introduction and on getting this debate at an important time in what is going on in the world of trees and squirrels.
On Monday, the Minister said,
“you cannot have net zero without talking about trees”.—[Official Report, 22/5/23; col. 598.]
That was a prescient thing to say in view of the debate that we are having today. Indeed, many sources have concluded what the UK Squirrel Accord knows to be true: the biggest threat to our broadleaf woodlands is the grey squirrel, ring-barking as they do trees aged between 10 and 40 years and effectively killing them.
The UK Squirrel Accord is the coming together of 45 organisations of the United Kingdom to address this unpleasant truth, comprising the four Governments, their nature agencies, the main voluntary sector bodies and the principal private sector players. The accord has not only ensured good communication among the member bodies but allowed scientific research to be commissioned together. Quite a lot has been achieved in laying the groundwork for a major initiative in reducing the number of grey squirrels, in large part through the use of fertility control.
This exciting research is being led at the Animal and Plant Health Agency—APHA—and includes strands on the fertility control substance, the hoppers that contain it and, most important, the rigorous computer modelling that underpins the rollout strategy. The research phase is approaching its fifth and final year, which will give way to the landscape trials phase and then a licensing phase before the rollout. The Minister has ministerial responsibility for APHA. The Defra family and APHA have been very helpful and involved in the accord. Does the Minister agree that this fertility control research represents the outstanding near-term option as a key weapon for grey squirrel control?
The APHA research has been funded in part by the Defra family, but just over £1 million has been raised from private UK individuals and trusts. I thank those people very much. There have been some really generous people and they have brought with them a lot of knowledge and the ability for us to do the large-scale field trials when the time comes. I hope that it is not ungrateful to the Minister, who is such a good supporter of ours, to observe that larger sums of government money are being spent in other areas of disease and invasive alien species. Given the central need to deal with this issue for net-zero reasons alone, I urge the Government to consider upping the resource that they devote to this issue.
There are two areas where the Government can help. The first is the cost of the licensing process that we are about to undergo, for both the hoppers and the substances that will be left behind in them, and the second is increasing the co-ordinating resource that the UK Squirrel Accord has available for the next phases. We have been well resourced in people and in monetary terms up to now, thanks to generosity and the 45 organisations, but there will be a step change in what we need to do going forward and this needs more bodies. It will take a lot of effort to deal with further planning and the engagement and education of everyone up and down the country and there will be many other issues as well. If we have more bodies now, we will make a better job of it. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition, although I am not speaking on its behalf today. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I seem to remember that we have debated these issues before and I have always been grateful for his contributions.
There are many reasons why increasing our woodland cover is important. For example, being able to walk in woodlands is associated with mental health, at a time when this is a huge issue for us as a society; it is clearly deeply bedded into the issues of net zero; and it is intimately associated with the need to increase again our biodiversity. It is of inestimable importance.
The threat posed by grey squirrels is therefore an issue that exercises many of us, along with the longing that we might one day be able to reintroduce red squirrels. I have to say that the problem is not just grey squirrels; in North Hertfordshire we have black squirrels. I do not know if the Committee has come across them but they are breeding across both North Hertfordshire and South Cambridgeshire, and are a feature of our local area in my diocese. Sadly, there are now only a few conservation areas for red squirrels left, as we have heard, following the introduction of the grey squirrel in the 18th century and indeed the wider issue of the reduction in woodland.
The damage caused by grey squirrels is huge. According to government statistics, the total cost of grey squirrels and other invasive species to the UK is about £1.8 billion a year. That figure perhaps puts into perspective some of the pleas about whether we may be able to find some modest funding to help with this important work.
Stripping off the bark of broadleaf trees means that we lose much of our woodland. A recent report by the Royal Forestry Society on the damage caused by grey squirrels estimates that they cost about £37 million a year to forestry, and they are identified as the greatest single threat to broadleaf trees in the UK. I have been grateful to hear about the project—others know more about this than I do—by the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop an oral contraceptive to target the grey squirrel, and about the work that the Government have been doing with the Roslin Institute and the European Squirrel Initiative to breed infertility into the female grey squirrel population. Can Minister give us an update on those projects, particularly what the prospects are for rolling them out more widely and an indication of the timeframe?
The need to increase our woodland cover, in the light of the falls over recent centuries, is clear. There are other reasons too. Increasing biodiversity is really important, and I find that that now overlaps with some other areas that I have worked in. We are trying to deal with some very difficult problems of bat infestations in churches, partly because so many of our farm buildings have been put out of action for bats but also because much of the tree cover where some of them have lived in the past has been lost. That is causing irreparable damage to many of our historic churches and their contents. We need to find a number of solutions, of which increasing woodland cover is a very long-term aim but part of the solution.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale: first, on his initiating the debate; secondly, on a really interesting speech; and, thirdly, on his work, which we have discussed in the past, of controlling grey squirrels—work that is not yet over.
I declare an interest: I have a farm in Leicestershire on which I plant a lot of trees. I really farm for conservation—for conservation subsidy, probably—but the birdlife has improved dramatically through planting trees and hedges and through various other features, including diminishing the magpie population.
I have been interested in squirrels for a very long time. In our family, when my son was little, he used to refer to “squeals”, so that is what we always call them—I think that is rather a nice name for them. The ones that we see are always grey. I found one on the road when I was bicycling home one night, when I was about 15, which I imaginatively called Cyril. It then escaped. I took another one from a dray—I think I imaginatively called him Cyril as well—and took him up to my rooms in my college in Oxford, where he ran up and down the curtains and frightened the people making the beds. He was sweet until he started biting me.
My father used to call squirrels “tree rats”, and I have to say that, notwithstanding having kept two as pets, that is what they are. Back when I was a boy, and I am one of the oldest people here, you used to get a shilling for a tail, as I recall. I do not know when that finished; perhaps the Minister might tell me.
I have eaten squirrel. Actually, it was quite good. I recommend it on salad on brioche, although it is a bit of a pain to skin. The original Brunswick pie was from New Brunswick, where they put squirrel in it, and that is where they come from.
As I have said, I have been planting trees—some 10 acres or so—on the farm. On one two-acre plot alone, the damage done by squirrels has to be seen to be believed. I should think they have killed one in three trees by ring-barking, and they have damaged a lot of others. If anybody wants to see it, you can see the damage they have done—it is just shocking.
Owen Paterson, when he was Secretary of State for Defra, recommended to me something called a Kania 2000 trap. I strongly recommend it. Unfortunately, they are out of production for some reason—I think they came from Canada—but I hope they will start to be produced again, because they really work. To illustrate my point, in that two-acre plot, this year on one tree alone I have caught 14 squirrels. You never see them, so where do they all come from? I think I have thinned them out, but they will of course be back. That was in a six-week period. These are very good traps; I recommend them.
We all agree that squirrels need huge control. I think they need “annihilation”, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. It would be excellent if we managed to clear them out of the whole country, as they are an alien species. We need concerted action; I know the Minister is going to tell us in his speech about the concerted action we are going to have. Whatever campaign he runs, be it poison—I can see the disadvantages of that—or some form of contraceptive or gene-editing, it will be fantastic. However, if we are to have contraception spread widely, what effect will it have if you eat the squirrel? Perhaps the Minister might let me know the answer to that as well. It is not too worrying for me, at my age, but for younger people it might be. The point is that if we do not have a serious campaign to defeat these squirrels, as has been mentioned already, the government ambition to plant many more trees in this country will fail.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for initiating this timely debate.
First, I thank the Government for introducing and improving a variety of grant schemes, including funding important maintenance for new woodland over 10 years. However, this funding is constrained by the lack of adequate resources for the processing and approval of planting applications, which delays the rollout ofusb woodland creation. There has been an unfortunate side effect on tree nurseries explicitly encouraged by further government support following the Government’s response to the EFRA 2022 report on tree planting. Nurseries have been restricted in the sale of their products by the slow pace of government approvals of new woodland creation. I am most interested to hear the Minister’s response to the question of the availability of manpower resources in his ministry to process these applications.
My second major concern is the effect of the sale of carbon credits on the type of new woodland planted and its location. In East Anglia, considerable prime farmland has been bought up or rented at substantial premiums by investors outside the agriculture and forestry industries for the sole purpose of enjoying carbon credits. The favoured tree is the fast-growing paulownia, or foxglove tree, normally grown in our gardens for either its flower or huge leaves. There is no traditional commercial market for this wood in the UK and it is unsuitable for biomass. Paulownia scarcely meets the recommendation of the Woodland Trust to plant native trees and shrubs. It also fails to accord with the Government’s environmental improvement plan and efforts to reverse the decline of species and wildlife habitats. From the point of view of the Government and the Forestry Commission meeting targets on woodland expansion, this is an easy win, but in establishing appropriate woodland species on suitable land, it is a disaster. Could the Minister explain why this has been allowed to happen, and what can be done to stop the abuse of a sensible long-term government policy to increase woodland using appropriate species on appropriate land?
Thirdly, I come to the establishment of new woodland and the control of vermin. Others have dealt with the squirrel problem and, to a certain extent, measures to control deer, but in my own woodland I am finding it increasingly difficult to find people to shoot the deer due to the dangers posed by increasing public access. If an incoming Government introduced a right to roam, vermin control would be even more difficult, leaving aside the adverse effects of such a freedom on other wildlife that we wish to encourage.
For the prevention of deer damage, I also ask the Minister to review the encouragement of using expensive tree guards on ex-farmland—they blow over, take for ever to biodegrade and look like cemeteries—rather than using fencing, which can be less expensive, more effective and easier to manage.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest, as in the register, as an owner and trustee of woodlands. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on securing this important debate.
The Government have an ambitious target to promote new woodland planting—all very laudable, albeit currently unrealistic in terms of the numbers forecast—and have made this a keystone of ELMS. What does not seem to attract sufficient government attention, however, is the ongoing maintenance of existing woodland. Rather than having overmature woodland and unmanaged plantations going back and, in so doing, failing to maximise their carbon sequestration potential, the Government should be encouraging much more effective woodland management plans for both thinning and coppicing. A more efficient and vibrant carbon trading market can develop as an additional benefit off the back of this. I have mentioned this to my good friend the Minister in the past and I ask him to look at it again.
I am old enough to remember the issues that farming faced with rabbits before the introduction of that man-manufactured disease myxomatosis. While I do not wish the introduction of a similar disgusting cure to be foisted on the grey squirrel population, the scale of the problem is similar and we need to find a solution that is as radical in its outcome. Both are invasive alien species after all: the rabbit was introduced by the Romans and the grey squirrel by misguided owners of country estates in the 19th century.
Control used to take the form of poisoning, trapping and shooting. The first is now problematic, the second is labour-intensive at a time when labour is in particularly short supply and the third is haphazard. Poking dreys in the spring with aluminium poles also requires a supply of fit men and is no work for the faint-hearted. It is also a filthy occupation if the dreys land on your head.
We need to fall back on another solution, which is now present in the form of oral contraception by means of a fertility control vaccine being researched by the Red Squirrel Survival Trust, to which I am pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, referred. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on all the work he has been doing in this area. I have contributed to this excellent cause financially, and I urge as many people as are able to—certainly all woodland owners—to contribute too. Combined with traditional means of control, it will provide the opportunity to reduce numbers of grey squirrels to something acceptable.
Why is there a need for this? I have been looking at the damage wrought by grey squirrels on a three year-old chestnut coppice and a beautiful cover of young hornbeam. Last summer’s drought seemed to make the grey squirrel population even more vigorous than usual, and I estimate that, of the damaged and barked shoots on each stool, only 10% are showing any signs of regrowth—a dramatic reduction in both the commercial volume and the value of the crop. Am I becoming increasingly paranoid about grey squirrel vigour, reflecting something referred to earlier? They seem to be getting smaller in size yet are reproducing over a longer time span throughout the year. It is no coincidence that squirrel numbers are increasing alongside decreasing woodland bird numbers, given their liking for birds’ eggs.
With the current level of threat from the grey squirrel population, what choices should be made by woodland owners seeking to plant if the monoculture of softwoods is not on their agenda? Perhaps the Minister could indicate how he thinks the planting of oak and beech can prosper without controlling the squirrel population. Where does this fit within the yet to be updated 2014 grey squirrel action plan? While we are about it, is there a deer action plan waiting in the wings?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Redesdale on securing this debate and on his detailed introduction to it. I was fascinated by the idea of gene drive technology.
The promotion and protection of our native woodland cover is vital to maintain and improve the country’s biodiversity. In March 2022, the UK’s total woodland cover was estimated at 3.24 million hectares, which is 13% of the total UK land area. During 2021-22, 14,000 hectares of new woodland were created, but although woodland is gradually increasing, woodland wildlife is decreasing. The enthusiasm for planting fast-growing firs and pines as a cash crop has led to silent forests and woodland walkways. The loss of ancient trees has hastened the loss of wildlife that used to inhabit the woods. Existing native woodlands are isolated and in poor ecological condition. Disease is also a significant factor.
Non-native invasive trees and shrubs, such as rhododendron, have grown at a prolific rate, taking over the space that used to be inhabited by our native shrubs. The Minister will know that, as a member of the land use commission, I am in favour of a land use strategy, which would clearly delineate where it was important for native tree species to be protected and new saplings to be planted. We need a lot more tree cover, but it has to be the right trees in the right place.
Trees, however hardy, are under attack not just from disease and cash crops but from the other invasive species: the grey squirrel. Grey squirrels are an extremely successful invasive species, systematically destroying trees that were previously the home of the native red squirrel. Wherever the grey squirrel goes, it eventually reduces the number of red squirrels. There are several reasons for this. The grey is a carrier of squirrel pox, to which it has some immunity—not so the unlucky red squirrel. Squirrel pox is easily passed from the grey to the red, resulting in a reduction in numbers.
The grey squirrel is more successful in adapting to a changing habitat. Sitka spruce plantations are an unfavourable habitat for the red squirrel, which find that the areas where they can exist are diminishing. They are pushed into smaller areas of our countryside.
In 2014, the Government published a grey squirrel action plan, which has been referred to. This is now nearly 10 years old. Under the Countryside Stewardship scheme in this plan, landowners can be provided with financial support for controlling grey squirrels. There is apparently a new grey squirrel action plan, but it has yet to be published. Can the Minister say when this might happen?
On 24 March this year, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at Defra said, in answer to a Written Question, that
“Defra has provided £300,000, to support research and development of fertility control methods to reduce numbers of grey squirrels”.
Can the Minister say whether this is effective? Many noble Lords have asked about this.
The UK Squirrel Accord—a partnership of over 40 organisations—seeks to secure and expand red squirrel populations through the red squirrel action plan. Let us hope that the two plans together will have the desired effect of reducing greys, increasing the number of reds and assisting damaged trees to recover.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for initiating this debate to explore how we can protect and promote woodland cover, as well as control the grey squirrel population—although also now the black squirrel population. I am aware that the noble Lord has been closely associated with these issues for many years. We live in a green and pleasant land—at least, I believe we would all like to—which is why we are here to debate such an important issue for our natural and domestic environment.
The UK has a disappointing record, over generations, in preserving our historic and native woodlands, although that is improving. Only 13% of our great country has forest cover. This compares somewhat unfavourably to a global average of 31%. In France it is 32%, in Germany 33% and in Spain 37%. However, these figures alone do not tell us the full challenge that we face to rebuild our woodlands, because it is not just about the volume of trees that we have but the quality of what has been planted and the effect it is having on our immediate environment. The Woodland Trust has estimated that, since 1999, we have lost nearly 1,000 ancient woodlands and a further thousand are still under threat.
This is compounded by the planting of non-native species, which may be beautiful—at least, I consider them to be—but are doing little to support woodland wildlife. In fact, according to the RSPB, since 1970 the woodland bird index has declined by a quarter and the woodland specialist bird index has fallen by 45%. As noble Lords will be aware, these statistics will reflect similar figures for all woodland wildlife as they are subject to the same environmental impacts.
This is therefore an environmental crisis, and one that is not helped by the presence of so many grey squirrels in our delicate ecosystem, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, so ably highlighted. Grey squirrels have done significant damage to our native woodlands by their bark-stripping activities and are threatening the very survival of some of our most cherished tree species, not least the beech tree.
No one participating in this debate needs convincing that more has to be done to rebuild our natural woodlands and to enhance our domestic forest cover, but we need some clarity from the Minister. Can he assist us by providing responses to the following questions?
In 2021, the Government published the England Trees Action Plan 2021 to 2024. We are now half way through the time allotted by the Government to reach their target of planting 30,000 hectares of woodland per year. Can the Minister outline how much of the £500 million budget has been spent and when the Government expect to reach their goal of 30,000 hectares per year? Can the Minister also provide us with a date for when the much-promised new grey squirrel action plan will be published, and which funding pots will be linked to it to ensure its effective implementation?
Earlier this month, the Government confirmed that a new rare species survival fund would be launched soon and would provide support for red squirrels. Can the Minister inform the Committee what the Government mean by “soon” and when we should expect it?
There are few things more beautiful than the British countryside. Each one of us will have a favourite tree, a favourite walk or a favourite view. The onus is on each and every one of us to protect and enhance what we have, but to do so we need support and clear direction. I hope that the Minister can assist today.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I refer the Committee to my entry in the register. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who has called this debate at a timely moment and speaks from rare and real knowledge of the problem.
This debate is about promoting and protecting our woodland cover but also about controlling grey squirrels—so it is also about saving the red squirrel. Sitting in this Room are three red squirrel heroes of mine. The first is the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who I have been talking to about this subject for well over a decade. He alluded to the knowledge gained through the red squirrel protection partnership, and I suspect he knows at least as much as the Geordie friend he referred to about how the squirrel behaves and how to control it effectively. My second hero is the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, because of his wonderful stewardship of the UK Squirrel Accord and his involvement in this issue. Both those noble Lords have a gentle way of lobbying, but anyone would be foolish if they took that to be a lack of determination. They are both extremely passionate and determined about this issue, and extremely effective in changing policy and making sure that we are doing the right things. The noble Earl is right: we need more funding in the next spending round, and it is an absolute priority for me to make sure that we get the level of funding we want to roll forward these new ideas, which I shall come on to talk about.
The third of my red squirrel heroes is the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, my predecessor in this role. He sits in an absolutely bipartisan position in our proceedings today, but I know of his passion in this role and he is the voice in my head on many of these issues. I thank him for all the work he has done on this subject—I hope that we have noted the tie he is wearing.
Beyond this Committee are a great many more red squirrel heroes of mine. The scientists at APHA have been referred to. Those carrying out immunocontraception work in York are extraordinary, very passionate and gifted people. I want also to mention the team I have at Defra, who are bringing forward the grey squirrel action plan which will be published soon—this summer, I hope. That will show that there is real ambition to tackle this and to use the new technologies that are coming forward.
The other heroes in this piece are land managers, who are tackling the problem—people who are putting in resources of their own because they love the natural world and respect the natural capital for which they are responsible—and those who work for them, particularly gamekeepers, who are often wrongly attacked but who do much to protect our biodiversity and reverse its decline. They are certainly the people who have the skill, the knowledge and the will to tackle the difficult issue of predation control, as well as pest control.
Your Lordships are aware that our tree-planting ambitions are to have 16.5% of England under tree cover by 2050. That is a target in the Environment Act. We want to increase our tree cover by an area the size of Cheshire. That is 7,000 hectares a year by the end of this Parliament, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson. In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, we want to cut in half the time it takes to put in place the relevant permissions and grants to plant trees. We want to give land managers more understanding about where they will be allowed to plant trees. As my noble friend Lord Caithness said, we do not want to see trees planted on areas where rare waders are nesting, but it is really important to help people make those decisions.
The England Trees Action Plan 2021 to 2024 and the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 contain this desire to boost tree planting, improve woodland management and support a thriving green economy in our trees and woodlands. All this will be done mainly through our £650 million nature for climate fund. Today, around 42% of our woods are not actively managed, a point made by my noble friend Lord Colgrain. Many of the Government’s actions to plant new woodlands need to be balanced by action to improve existing woodlands, because that is where we are locking up carbon, helping our target to reverse species loss and improving our timber security as we bring those woodlands into production. It is there that we are providing more space for people to be close to nature to heal us, as the right reverend Prelate so eloquently put it, and to enhance our landscapes. We get a spiritual uplift from being in and close to nature.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, talked about types of trees. We need to see the right trees planted in the right place. I always slightly chide the Woodland Trust and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who chairs that wonderful organisation. I am a great fan of it, but it is very blinkered in wanting just native trees. At a time when we are plagued by pests and diseases, and with the threat of climate change, adaptation means that we have to be broader in the species we plant, and we have to be resilient in the species we find to tackle it.
A number of noble Lords talked about deer. This summer we will publish our deer strategy, which will look at this issue from both ends of the telescope. It will not just deal with the problem on the ground from the damage caused but look at where we can create markets. This is a cholesterol-free meat. There are half a million too many deer out there, and if we do not get on top of it the number will be 750,000 before we know it. Wonderful organisations such as the Country Food Trust are looking at creating hubs, with government support, so that we can get deer to a quantity where people who procure for the public and private sectors can get the quality and quantity of deer they want and get it into our prisons, Armed Forces, NHS and other organisations. We are getting a pull factor as well as a push factor to tackle the terrible problem of too many deer in our countryside.
On hedgerows, I say to the noble Earl that I am hugely impressed by what the Crown Estate is doing across its land, which it farms both in-hand and, mainly, with tenants. It is planting precisely the sort of hedgerows that we need. We are about to publish more about our hedgerow standard, and I think the noble Earl will be pleased when he sees that.
However, all this ambition for restoration of nature, increasing timber security and achieving our net-zero ambitions will fail if we do not protect the woodlands we have from pests and diseases. Taxpayers’ money will be wasted, nature will be depleted and we will have a view of abject failure of successive Governments who were not prepared to take the tough choices that needed to be taken to tackle pests and diseases. Those will be our failures if we do not tackle pests such as the grey squirrel.
Recollections about this vary, but I understand that the first grey squirrel was introduced in 1876 by a banker called Thomas U Brocklehurst, at Henbury Hall, near Macclesfield. Further releases happened throughout the Victorian era and into the Edwardian era. In 1905-07, 91 were released in the Regent’s Park. The right reverend Prelate is here, so I will be careful with the words I use, but I hope that there is a hot corner of hell for the eccentrics who visited this gross act of environmental vandalism on us. It is now up to us to see if we can reverse it.
The problem is that one or two land managers can do their bit to control grey squirrels in a landscape but, if they stop or their neighbours do not play their part, the grey squirrels win and nature loses. As has been said, the way to deal with this is across a landscape—a catchment, a range of hills or a peninsula. We need to work with the topography of nature and work out how we are going to do this. The noble Lord who instigated the debate understands this, and we need to use the skills and knowledge of him and others in developing this plan.
The grey squirrel action plan, shortly to be published in its refreshed form, will set out the many incentives for action that we will provide. The countryside stewardship payments include an incentive, on a hectarage basis, to control squirrels. The UK Squirrel Accord will be supported to build on the £1 million it has used to explore innovative methods of control.
Immunocontraception is a game-changer: it fills a gap where there has been either a lack of skill or a lack of will to kill grey squirrels. The APHA has successfully identified an oral contraceptive vaccine, which is being tested. It has designed a feeder that will ensure that only free-living grey squirrels will access the contraceptive. The results of field trials showed that these feeders can deliver this game-changing solution, but there is more work to do. I assure the noble Lord that there will be no reticence among Ministers in making sure that the licensing of all aspects of this solution allow its delivery to be rolled out as quickly and cheaply as possible, and will not impair the ability to deliver what I think will be an absolute game-changer.
Other noble Lords referred to CRISPR gene-editing, which may provide another means to limit the population growth of grey squirrels. This is potentially massive. We are monitoring developments closely with colleagues from the research and woodlands management communities. The Forestry Commission is working with the Roslin Institute, which is part of Edinburgh University, to fund a PhD to understand how a gene drive approach might be used to manage grey squirrel populations in the future. I cannot add to what has been said about this, but it presents the possibility of a real solution.
What is the prize if we get this right? The prize is woodlands that survive and, in many cases, thrive. The other day, I was in a woodland of 44 acres, which was planted by my father as a woodland grant scheme, with free public access. There were thousands of oak trees, none of which will get any higher than this Room or support the 2,000 species that exist in the iconic mature oaks that we all love. That is because of squirrel damage. Biodiversity benefits are also a prize. Red squirrel numbers will stabilise and their range will increase. Everyone, not just those who are concerned about timber production, needs to be part of this great endeavour.
“Iconic” is an overused word, but the red squirrel is emblematic of our fight to restore nature across this country—it is on the front of our environmental improvement plan. If we succeed in encouraging red squirrels, we succeed across so much of our threatened natural capital. I hope to live until the day when I can walk through St James’s Park and not grind my teeth because I see a tourist feeding a squirrel; I would be delighted if they were feeding a red squirrel.
Overseas Territories
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current relationship with the Overseas Territories.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, today’s debate is timely because it follows not only His Majesty’s recent Coronation, which saw the gathering of our global British family—something in which I was proud to take part in my capacity as honorary colonel of the Cayman Islands Regiment—but the annual summit of British Overseas Territories that followed, the Joint Ministerial Council, held here in London, which by all accounts has been a great success.
One of the reasons for that success is down to my noble friend the Minister. I have had a close working relationship with and interest in our OTs for many years and, if I am honest, it is not an interest that I have always found shared across government. However, I can genuinely say that, when it comes to this Government’s interest in and support for our OTs, we appear to have turned a corner. That is in no small part down to my noble friend and his team at the FCDO. An obvious recent example of this is the timely and effective delivery of vaccines during Covid, which did much to reinforce the benefits to OTs of their enduring relationship with the UK. Without wishing to embarrass him, I want to highlight the contribution of Mr Adam Pile to that delivery.
A similar debate last week in the House of Commons had as its Motion:
“That this House is committed to upholding the interests of British Overseas Territories and their citizens; recognises the special historical, cultural, and social bonds that bind the United Kingdom and Overseas Territories; and calls upon the Government to ensure that British Overseas Territories citizens’ rights as British citizens are upheld, to defend the sovereignty and borders of Overseas Territories from foreign powers, and to consider the unique circumstances of each Territory when formulating policies which affect them”.
That is a neat summary of where I am sure your Lordships’ House would aspire our relationship with the OTs to be.
While each territory is unique in its relationship with the UK, the one thing that underpins that relationship is that all British OTs enjoy the right to self-determination. The fact that they maintain a constitutional link with the UK is ultimately their choice. I am sure noble Lords will join me in reaffirming our commitment to defending that principle.
Spanning the globe, British OTs are as diverse in their geography as they are in their culture. One size certainly does not fit all and that requires both sensitivity and agility from HMG if they are to support the unique circumstances, constitutions, challenges and opportunities of each territory.
It is that challenge that I turn to first. I have always been slightly perplexed as to why that relationship is held by the FCDO. After all, our OTs are not foreign, are not part of the Commonwealth—other than through UK membership—and only four of the 14 are eligible for development assistance. While the FCDO may manage the relationship, it holds few if any of the levers of power to support OTs when required. Whatever the 2012 White Paper may say, it is my experience that this arrangement leads other government departments into thinking that OTs are not their responsibility.
Take, for example, recent events in the Turks and Caicos Islands, where the double challenge is faced of potentially being overwhelmed by Haitian migrants and a spike in violent crime. Both are areas of responsibility of the Home Office but, as we have discussed before, HMG’s support to TCI when threatened by these challenges left considerable room for improvement. I recently visited TCI with the Chief of the General Staff, yet when I raised my concerns with the Home Office on my return it was clear that its impression was that this was a matter for the FCDO.
While I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister have now written to all government departments reminding them of their responsibilities to OTs, that does not solve the structural problem that we have in the Government. More important, there is no guarantee that their successors will be as committed, which is why I believe we should consider structural change. OTs need direct access to all government departments. I know that my noble friend likens the FCDO’s co-ordination role to air traffic control in relation to OTs’ needs but, from a machinery-of-government perspective, does my noble friend not think the co-ordination of support to the OTs should be the responsibility of the Cabinet Office?
In my remaining time, I simply want to highlight both some successes and challenges that we have with our relationships with the OTs. The first success is one close to my heart and relates to the overseas territory regiments. Last week, I chaired the overseas territory regimental conference in Bermuda and I express my enormous thanks to both the governor and the commanding officer of the Royal Bermuda Regiment, Lieutenant-Colonel Ben Beasley, for facilitating this.
We now have six OT regiments. The original four—the Royal Montserrat Defence Force, the Falkland Islands Defence Force, the Royal Bermuda Regiment and the Royal Gibraltar Regiment—all date back either in their current form or as antecedent units to the 1890s, while the two new units, the Cayman Islands Regiment and Turks and Caicos Islands Regiment, date back to just 2019 and 2020 respectively.
Following a visit to Montserrat in 2018 post-Hurricane Irma in my capacity as Minister for the Armed Forces, I wrote to all the OT governors without a regiment suggesting that they create an Army Reserve unit within the territory to help to deliver on-island humanitarian assistance and disaster relief capability for immediate post-hurricane support. I promised full support from the Ministry of Defence in their establishment and I am delighted that, despite both being created during Covid, the new regiments have been a success and are capable of delivering food, desalinated water and emergency accommodation as well general assistance to the Government in times of crisis. The purpose of the conference last week was to evolve the units to be able to assist each other in times of crisis in addition to support from the UK. I would be grateful for the Minister’s continued support in their development and perhaps even encouragement for the British Virgin Islands to join the club.
I also draw his attention to two minor issues. One is ensuring equality in medallic recognition for the OT regiments in line with their UK counterparts. With particular reference to the Royal Bermuda Regiment, the other is supporting its campaign to have the battle honours of its two antecedent regiments—the Bermuda Militia Artillery and the Bermuda Volunteer Rifle Corps—transferred to the new regiment. It is a small but emotive and important issue.
The next success regards the environment. The 14 UK OTs collectively contain more than 90% of the biodiversity for which the UK is legally responsible under the Convention on Biological Diversity. To use the Cayman Islands as just one example, the islands are home to more than 3,000 documented native species. Over the past 40 years, successive Cayman Islands Governments have worked to develop a comprehensive framework of legislation and policy aimed at safeguarding the sustainable future of the islands’ natural environment.
The Cayman Islands has led the world in protecting marine habitats. Currently, an impressive 48% of the Cayman Islands nearshore coastal waters are protected through an enhanced marine protected area network. As a testament to the efforts of the Cayman Islands, with the backing of the UK Government, the Little Cayman marine parks and protected areas, which I had the pleasure to visit last September, have been added to the tentative list to become UNESCO world heritage sites for their exceptional importance to marine biodiversity and their incredible natural beauty. I hope that my noble friend will continue to support this application.
I also draw your Lordships’ attention to the role of some OTs in supporting the UK’s imposition of sanctions on Russia. Cayman, for example, established a joint task force, Operation Hektor, which has resulted in Russian frozen assets to 14 April 2023 of $8.88 billion and €298.6 million respectively.
There is also the OTs’ contribution to the Red Ensign Group, the UK flag state, made up of the 13 constituent British maritime administrations of the UK, overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It is one of the leading flag states of the world. It sits on the International Maritime Organization’s council and is acknowledged for its technical leadership. It is an excellent example of the benefits of the UK, OTs and Crown dependencies working together.
I end with three challenges to bring to my noble friend’s attention. The first is student visas. Students with British OT passports require a visa to study in the UK. In order to obtain the necessary visa, students must submit an application to the nearest British high commission located in another jurisdiction, which is often an expensive and lengthy process. The Minister knows that this issue was raised at this year’s Joint Ministerial Council and I would be grateful if he could outline how the Government intend to address it.
The second challenge is Girlguiding. Girlguiding UK’s board of trustees announced that British Girlguiding Overseas, which has around 2,600 members in 36 countries and territories, will no longer be part of Girlguiding UK. These OT branches have been in place for nearly 40 years. Frankly, this seems an incredibly short-sighted step as we seek to foster yet stronger links between our OTs and the UK. Given that Girlguiding UK will continue to support the Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, I simply ask my noble friend to use his best endeavours to encourage Girlguiding UK to reverse this retrograde step.
The final point I wish to raise with my noble friend is successive Governments’ frozen pension policy for pensioners living overseas, including those in certain British Overseas Territories who are prevented from accessing a full state pension that increases in line with inflation. It has turned the annual state pension uprating into a postcode lottery. Pensioners living in overseas territories that have an existing social security arrangement with the UK, such as Bermuda and Gibraltar, receive their full uprated state pension, while others living in, for instance, the Falklands Islands or St Helena do not. These pensioners are living not in a foreign country but in a British territory, so why is the policy of uprating not applied equally to all the overseas territories?
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I will return to the issue of values and rights, as introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, in his excellent opening speech. I am afraid that our views will diverge.
People living in the British Overseas Territories deserve nothing short of the same respect for their human rights and fundamental freedoms as that available to those living in the United Kingdom. Indeed, in 2012, the United Kingdom Government recognised that being an overseas territory entails responsibilities, and that territory Governments are expected to meet the same high standards as the UK Government in their respect for human rights. The UK Government also recognised that they have a fundamental responsibility to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the people of the territories to ensure their just treatment and their protection against abuses.
It is in that spirt that, on 6 July 2022, I introduced the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Overseas Territories) Bill to make provision for the marriage of same-sex couples in the six overseas territories that currently do not permit same-sex couples to marry. My Bill sought to make what would now be regarded by most people in the UK, and in the majority of overseas territories that have enabled same-sex marriage, as a positive change to the law to allow same-sex couples to gain full and equal recognition of their loving and committed relationships.
I believe that the ability to marry the person we love is an incontrovertible and fundamental human right. Every person in your Lordships’ House today recognises this, because every person in your Lordships’ House would be horrified if they were told that their current marriage was not recognised by law or, in the future, that they could not marry the person they loved. Denying two adults the right to marry on the basis that they are the same sex is an outrage. This House recognised that outrage and put an end to it in England and Wales when it played a pivotal role in passing the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013.
This House must take a lead in respect of those overseas territories that will not address the outrage of marriage inequality themselves. We can and should protect same-sex couples from the abuse of discrimination and legislate to grant them the right to marry. I have heard repeatedly all of the arguments against the UK doing this—that it is a sensitive issue, that we must respect the right of territory Governments to choose for themselves, and that if we do not, we will damage our partnership with the overseas territories. I reject every single argument I have heard against the UK Parliament taking a lead in this area for one simple reason. We are dealing with something so corrosive and destructive of human existence and dignity: excluding people from access to marriage, which is universally recognised as a fundamental right. I believe that we have a moral obligation to act.
I hope, perhaps in vain, that the Government will find time for my Bill to enable us to take a simple step that will transform the lives of same-sex couples in the overseas territories at no cost to anyone. If they will not find time for my Bill, we will return to this issue time and again until it is settled. Justice must, and will, prevail.
Other areas of discrimination are faced by LGBT people in some of the British Overseas Territories and the Government must also address those. Inequality and discrimination diminish every single one of us and undermine the notion of a civilised society.
In conclusion, I want to take this opportunity to thank Professor Paul Johnson OBE, executive dean at the University of Leeds, for working with me to design the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Overseas Territories) Bill. Professor Johnson is known to many noble Lords for his ongoing work in this House and the other place on designing legislation to advance equality for LGBT people, not least in respect of enabling those in the United Kingdom shamefully mistreated because of their sexual orientation to access disregards and pardons—something which, with my noble friend and ally Lord Lexden, we continue to press the Government fully to deliver on.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, for securing what I believe is an extremely important debate.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and to offer Green support for his Private Member’s Bill and whatever we can do. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, for securing this debate.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, I will briefly reference frozen pensions, because it is a huge issue for 500,000 pensioners living overseas who cannot access a full state pension that increases in line with inflation. Many of those pensioners live in the overseas territories, and it is, in essence, turning the rest of their life into a postcode lottery. Pensioners living in overseas territories such as Bermuda and Gibraltar receive their fully uprated state pension, while those in the Falkland Islands, the Caymans or Anguilla see their pensions fall in value year on year. Some of them get as little as £20 a week. One example that has been shared with me is of Roger Edwards, a Falklands War veteran. He lives in the Falklands and now receives a state pension of just £106.50 a week compared to the full basic state pension of £156.20 a week, losing £1,800 a year as a result.
If I was going to do a checklist, I would also note in this debate the issue of economic crime. However, given that we will cover that again soon at the Report stage of the economic crime Bill, I will park it on one side.
In the time available, I will focus mostly on an issue that I have pre-warned the Minister about: that of carbon emissions in the Falkland Islands and more broadly, and the climate impacts of what is happening there. I fear that there is considerable confusion among the Government about this situation. I shall cross-reference a couple of Written Questions that I have put to them and responses that do not seem quite to add up.
The first of those Questions is HL6972, which was answered on 3 April. My Question was about the steps the Government were taking to work with the Government of the Falkland Islands to complete an emissions inventory for any potential future fossil fuel development. The Answer I received from the Minister stated:
“As a self-governing Overseas Territory, economic development, including the development and exploitation of hydrocarbons, is a matter for the Falkland Islands Government”.
In essence, that Answer appeared entirely to deny any responsibility here in Westminster. I then asked a further Question on 27 April, HL7503, about
“whether climate change emissions from British Overseas Territories are part of the UK’s total accounting for emissions and included in the Net Zero by 2050 target”.
The Answer I received was that
“emissions from the UK territory are in scope of domestic Carbon Budgets and the Net Zero target, in accordance with Section 89 of the Climate Change Act 2008”.
Those two things do not seem to square up. The Answer further stated:
“The UK’s ratification of the Paris Agreement, including its 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), is being extended to include CDOTS”—
or Crown dependencies and overseas territories.
I have been trying to make sense of how this all fits together. Part of the issue arises from the fact that, on 7 March 2007, the UK notified the UNFCCC that it wished to include Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the Falkland Islands in the UNFCCC. UN documents indicate that, shortly afterwards, the Government of Argentina notified the Secretary-General that they objected to this territorial application.
I am sorry; I have just given a very technical run-through, but I do not think the Government have been very clear about what is happening here. I do not necessarily expect the Minister to answer this rather complicated tangle fully today, but I hope he will commit to write to me afterwards to outline exactly where the Government see emissions for the Falkland Islands.
There is also a much broader issue. I note a very useful briefing from the RSPB, which all noble Lords taking part in this debate will have received, looking at crucial aspects of the British Overseas Territory and the climate emergency. That briefing notes:
“No UK Government Department has clear responsibility for supporting the Territories on climate adaptation, and there is no strategy in place to do so”.
This is a serious issue that really needs to be tackled. The RSPB briefing also notes:
“Many Caribbean Territories also still have very weak or absent development planning frameworks”,
which means that developments are taking place that are destructive to both climate and nature. They simply do not have the resources to deal with this.
Returning specifically to the Falklands, it deserves to be noted that the current population is about 3,500, growing at about 3% a year. None the less, it has an area half that of Wales, so it faces some very big issues, particularly with carbon emissions and peat. The Falklands have an amazing ecology; it is a place of no native trees, amphibians or reptiles, interestingly. But tussock grass, the naturally dominant species, when undisturbed can grow up to 10 feet high and is the fastest method of forming peat in the world.
The other relevant factor is that the Falklands are notably dry. The average rainfall, in some areas, ranges from 200 millimetres to 600 millimetres per year. The former end of that is definitely drought territory, even speaking from my Australian origins, and it is getting drier. The peat soil is drying out and blowing away.
There is also the very large issue of oil. The North Basin is thought to hold 580 million recoverable barrels of oil—a very large amount. The Falkland Islands Government are very keen to see the development of that, because of their budget’s huge dependency on fisheries. The UK Government have a real responsibility to work with and help the democratically elected Government of the Falkland Islands on these issues. This is a really big issue, which I do not believe the Government have got to grips with, which I am pushing them to do.
In the interests of full disclosure, earlier this year, I was in the Falkland Islands under the Armed Forces parliamentary scheme. I met members of the Falkland Islands Assembly, local officials and others, which very much informed what I have said today.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Lancaster on having been successful in the ballot and securing this timely debate.
When the late Queen died last September, I had just arrived in Gibraltar with a parliamentary delegation. The next day, the newspaper headlines were “The Queen of Gibraltar has died”. Fortunately, we were able to sign the book of condolences in the Governor’s house and to attend the firing of the 97-gun salute, by the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, from the harbour.
That proves, together with the turnout of premiers and other high-ranking leaders of overseas territories for the King’s Coronation, that the peoples of the overseas territories are without doubt among His Majesty’s most loyal subjects. That is in part because of the Coronation but also because of the joint ministerial council, which took place last week, the UKOTA meetings and the 40th anniversary celebrations, meetings and events that have taken place during the past year. There has been a great deal of activity recently.
In saying this, I thank the CPA—the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—for its ongoing work, which is not always recognised, and, especially, the public accounts committees of some of those territories, which operate successful financial centres. I also acknowledge the current Mr Speaker’s clear championship of these tiny territories and the warm welcome that he always gives at Speaker’s House. Speakers have always been very happy to receive and support the overseas territories, but Sir Lindsay is particularly active and recognised in this respect.
Over the years, I have introduced and participated in numerous debates about the overseas territories, and I am an active member of the British Overseas Territories All-Party Parliamentary Group, as well as most of the bilateral groups. In preparing for this debate, I took a look at one such debate that I introduced in February 1994.
The obvious changes since then are, of course, the name change from dependent territories, as it then was, to overseas territories, and the fact that Hong Kong was then one of their number, adding a large number of people to the statistics. Although Hong Kong is no longer an overseas territory, we still have an ongoing feeling of responsibility for its people and for those who have been disadvantaged by the changes. I stated in that debate that there were 58 people on the Pitcairn Islands, and now, according to the Library’s excellent briefing, it appears that only 50 people are left there.
The common factors that I noted then remain much the same. I said that
“they are virtually all island communities, English-speaking and essentially they have the same legal systems and democratic processes. However, from then on their needs and aspirations are diverse. There can be no blanket answer, I realise, to all their needs, but there are points of similarity and common interest between them”.—[Official Report, 9/2/1994; col. 1574.]
In that sense, nothing much has changed.
I have tabled Motions in recent years to have further debates on the overseas territories but, unfortunately, I have not been as successful as my noble friend in the ballot. My themes then would have been very much on the subjects of climate change, which has been referred to, and humanitarian and hurricane relief. The overseas territories, particularly in the Caribbean, have had great problems with hurricanes and the recent ravages. In this context, I should perhaps mention Montserrat in particular. I hope my noble friend can give us some assurances that the overseas development fund will be managed with the overseas territories very much in mind.
The other issue is biodiversity. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has already referred to the RSPB’s comprehensive briefing. Given that some 84% of the UK’s biodiversity is found in the various overseas territories, that is clearly a very important issue on which I hope my noble friend will be able to give us some assurances.
Given the time, I will mention quite rapidly the post-Brexit issues, such as the border issues for Gibraltar —it is not only Northern Ireland that has such issues as a result of Brexit—and the problems the Falklands Islands has had with its main export, squid, and with exports and entry to the European Union. I realise that I am running out of time. There is the issue of the European Union funding which went to the overseas territories. To what extent has that now been replaced, as promised by our Government?
Once again, I thank my noble friend for giving us this opportunity. I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, first, I declare a special interest in relation to the overseas territories: my father and grandfather were Bermudian, so I feel a very special part of that island. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, did not mention that we had a strong naval tradition there—certainly that was my father’s and grandfather’s part in that island.
I thank the noble Lord for initiating this important debate. He mentioned last week’s debate in the Commons. My honourable friend Stephen Doughty, the shadow Minister covering the overseas territories, set out five key principles that would guide a future Labour Government’s relationship with them. It is worth spelling out those five key principles again, because they reflect what the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said.
The first is devolution and democratic autonomy, which is about establishing clear consistency on constitutional principles of partnership and engagement. The second is listening and the principle of “Nothing about you without you”. The third is partnership. A future strong and stable relationship between the United Kingdom and each of the overseas territories must be built on mutual respect and inclusion—indeed, that involves all government departments, not just the FCDO.
The fourth key principle is the fact that rights come with responsibilities, as the 2012 White Paper recognised. In our British family, we share common values, as the noble Baroness mentioned, and legal traditions. We share obligations and principles, such as a robust commitment to democracy, the rule of law and liberty, and the protection of human rights, including those of people living with disabilities, women and girls, and—as my noble friend Lord Cashman raised—LGBT+ people. The cause that my noble friend advanced is absolutely right. We all share in our family the same rights, and we should all be treated in the same way. The fifth principle is the advancement of good governance, ensuring proper democratic accountability and regulation.
As my honourable friend said in the debate in the Commons, Labour has committed that we will defend their security, autonomy and rights, including in the case of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. I am pleased to see representatives of the Gibraltar Government here this afternoon.
The UK’s overseas territories are each a cherished and important part of the global UK family, each one with its own nuances that are too often overlooked and ignored. Far too often, the debate around the overseas territories is based on generalisations that fail to consider their uniqueness and the vibrancy of each territory and its history. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, that we must move away from the notion that, when it comes to the overseas territories, one size fits all.
My party believes firmly that the future of the overseas territories must be led first and foremost by the wishes of their people and communities. Labour will always be guided by the concerns and priorities of the people of the overseas territories. It is imperative that the relationships between the United Kingdom and each of those territories are built on mutual respect and trust, not just in the FCDO but across the whole of government, as the noble Lord said in his introduction. We need a very clear, joined-up strategy on the way the UK delivers for the overseas territories and their people. All too often we have seen oversights and bureaucratic issues that present unnecessary and enduring difficulties for those living in the overseas territories.
Naturally, to be part of the British family there are obligations which must be fulfilled pertaining to the values we all share, including the protection of human rights, the advancement of good governance and ensuring proper democratic accountability. These are very important points.
I have some specific questions for the Minister on two issues that I suspect are close to his heart. Primarily, can he tell us how the Government, across all departments, are collaborating with the overseas territories to deliver on sustainable development? How are we working to match the goals set out in the 2030 agenda? The climate crisis poses a unique threat to small islands—as the noble Baroness said, most of our British Overseas Territories are small islands. Can the Minister provide an update on the overseas territories biodiversity strategy, which is so vital to their future?
More generally, under Chapter XI of the UN charter, the UK has a responsibility to represent the overseas territories’ interests in the UN system. How does the UK engage with the democratically elected leaders of the BOTs at the UN? How do we ensure that their voices are heard at every level?
The steps that the Government are taking to ensure proper security collaboration with the UK overseas territories are vital to ensure not only our geopolitical reach but that those policies relating to our defence, security and foreign policy are matched. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, mentioned sanctions. I agree with him that our overseas territories have been very strong in implementing those policies, but how are we not just supporting them in adopting sanctions but ensuring that they have the capacity to implement and monitor them properly?
Those are vital issues to ensure the future of our relationships globally. I hope the Minister will reflect on the positive elements we are talking about. Across all parties, we share a genuine commitment to the overseas territories.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton for tabling this debate and giving the Committee an opportunity to discuss and celebrate the UK’s relationship with the overseas territories. The OTs are a core part of the British family. The UK has a responsibility to ensure their security, good governance and prosperity. We also have a moral obligation to protect the safety of the inhabitants of the territories, just as we do for inhabitants of the UK. Although we cherish our territories, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is right to emphasise that our partnership is built on mutual respect, as it must be. I reiterate the same commitment that my predecessors have made: the UK Government will defend the right of the territories to choose their own future.
As Minister for the Overseas Territories, I hosted all their elected leaders earlier this month for the 10th joint ministerial council. This came just a week after the leaders attended the Coronation and gave us the opportunity to celebrate the British family’s shared history together. My noble friend Lady Hooper made the point very well on both the response of the overseas territories to the sad death of Her Majesty the Queen and the celebration of the King and contribution to his Coronation.
We were joined by Ministers and officials from across the Government at the JMC. Our discussions covered top priorities, including migration, economic resilience and essential services. We made joint commitments to tackling urgent shared issues, such as the environment, financial transparency and healthcare access. While I am pleased that we are making progress on a range of important issues, it is also clear that there is much more to do. There are shortcomings that the Government undoubtedly must address, some of which my noble friend Lord Lancaster highlighted.
We have a fundamental duty to protect and support the territories, but the sad truth is that we have, at times, been found wanting. But I am determined and our Prime Minister has been clear that our territories will be prioritised across Government. I take this opportunity to echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lancaster about the Foreign Office or FCDO team, some of whom are behind me. I am lucky to work with such a diligent, hard-working, committed team. They go well beyond the call of duty in their support of the overseas territories.
However, it is also necessary for me to say, as has been said by a couple of other speakers, that while the FCDO is the lead department at the centre—I have used the term “air traffic control” before, because it accurately reflects our role with the OTs—we do not control the levers of delivery. They exist elsewhere, in other departments, so it is crucial that other departments step up to fulfil their reserved responsibilities to the overseas territories—whether it is the MoD providing vital logistical capabilities to respond to hurricanes or the Home Office bolstering the border security of territories responding to large levels of irregular migration.
Beyond meeting our reserved responsibilities, departments can contribute to and learn from British communities in these extraordinarily diverse and rich territories. We must do more. I know the Prime Minister shares this view: he has written to all departments, directing them to fulfil their responsibilities and, crucially, to nominate a dedicated Overseas Territories Minister, who will liaise with me. I will convene regular meetings of these OT Ministers to ensure that we are meeting our obligations.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about—but I am not sure he used the term—the OT strategy. He was talking about a government strategy on the OTs and that strategy is under way. The FCDO is leading that work but, again, this effort must go across the whole of government and involve the territories.
I return briefly to the question that my noble friend Lord Lancaster raised about why the FCDO should be the lead department on this within government. It is a difficult question to answer, because there is no obvious right or wrong, but I think it is right that our staff working on the OTs are experienced at working overseas and that our ambassadors and UK missions are joined up to advocate for the OTs internationally and to defend their sovereignty, especially the rights of the Falkland Islanders. A number of our ambassadors have played a crucial role in securing support for the islanders and their right to determine their own future.
I hope my noble friend is reassured that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I are completely committed to ensuring that the Government deliver for the territories. My noble friend Lady Hooper made a point about the Speaker and I simply echo her remarks: the Speaker is a champion for the overseas territories and he has been superb.
Of course, the ambition of all the territories is to be economically self-sufficient but, where this is not possible, we support them with overseas development assistance. The OTs continue to have the first call on our development budget. I am proud to say that, despite pressures across the ODA landscape, the FCDO team behind me was able to increase official development assistance to the eligible territories. This year, we will provide £85 million to the Governments of St Helena, Montserrat, Tristan da Cunha and the Pitcairn Islands. That will account for between 60% and 95% of the territory Governments’ budgets and will provide essential services, including education and healthcare.
In addition, we are investing many more millions in infrastructure in the territories. For example, we are providing £30 million for St Helena, £40 million for Montserrat, £4.5 million for Pitcairn and £2.5 million for Tristan.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
Since we are not short of time, many years ago, in opposition, I was privileged to travel to St Helena to make an assessment of whether we would build an airport. After seven days of bobbing on a boat from Cape Town, I think my first decision was that it could definitely have an airport. Could my noble friend give an update on the success of that airport? There were a few troubles to start with.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I think I am still limited to my 12 minutes —it is crazy; I do not make the rules—so I shall be very brief. The theme of airports cropped up a lot during the JMC. St Helena has its working airport; Ascension’s representatives arrived there on the inaugural flight. There is work going on in Anguilla, Montserrat and other places.
I will move on to the environment because I am going to run out of time and I have quite a few issues to cover. We are investing significantly to protect the ecosystems and biodiversity of the overseas territories, which are of global importance. It has been said already that they harbour over 90% of the UK’s biodiversity. They have numerous endemic species and they really are of global importance. I think the FCDO’s Blue Belt programme is one of the great conservation stories of my lifetime. We have supported it with around £40 million of funding this year. The programme now protects 4.5 million square kilometres of ocean. That does not even include the Cayman project my noble friend mentioned, which is extraordinary—and, yes, of course, I am very supportive of its UNESCO application.
We have invested more than £45 million over the last decade in biodiversity and conservation projects. I am thrilled that Defra has committed a further £10 million each year until 2025, and I hope it will go beyond that too. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, we have also worked closely to ensure that the voices of our overseas territories are amplified and magnified at UN climate change and biodiversity summits. We did that in Glasgow very effectively and we continue to do it. Indeed, I spoke to the UAE just yesterday and made this point then as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised a number of issues. First, based on everything I understand, it is the Falklands Islands’ right to pursue fossil fuel development, and we support its right to develop its natural resources as we support all the overseas territories in that regard. We are working very closely with the Falklands Islands Government to build local capacity so that if and when the development happens, it is properly regulated to the highest possible environmental and safety standards.
The noble Baroness asked about the emissions and where they are calculated; I will write to her on this topic to give a specific answer. However, I would make the point that the OTs contribute very little to emissions. Their contribution to nature, biodiversity and marine ecosystems is vastly disproportionate. It is right that we should focus more on that. We are working with the OTs which want to join the international agreements on emissions. As I say, in the interests of time, I will get back to her with more details on that.
She asked about who in government is in charge of this adaptation. She rightly said that almost all the overseas territories are islands and therefore acutely vulnerable to the changes we know are happening. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, as well. This came up a lot, as your Lordships can imagine, at the JMC. It is very clear that the OTs have a particular vulnerability. The responsible Minister is Trudy Harrison at Defra. She spoke at the JMC and we had a very wide-ranging conversation. The FCDO also provides funding through the CSSF for environment and climate change work. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the biodiversity strategy is being consulted on right now—it is happening.
We continue to support the territories in building their resilience to hurricanes and disaster response. That includes FCDO funding for annual training, equipment and warning systems. We also provide operational support. From next week, HMS “Dauntless” will be there, ready to act if necessary. I pay tribute to the regiments and defence forces in Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Montserrat and Cayman, which will play a key role as first responders when natural disasters affect the overseas territories.
I will not be able to answer all the questions about regiments and medallic recognition, but I have a good answer for the noble Lord—I shall follow up afterwards, if he does not mind. Likewise, we are working on the Royal Bermuda Regiment’s battle honours. I know that colleagues in the Ministry of Defence are looking closely at that issue now, but I will give him a fuller answer in due course.
On visas, we know that it is vital that students with British overseas citizen passports are able to study in the UK. This is an ongoing issue. I assure the noble Lord and others that I have written in very strong terms to the Home Office Minister on this. We are following up and making ourselves as big a pain in the backside as possible to ensure that we resolve that issue.
The issue of Girlguiding is beyond our control as a Government, but it has been raised by me and by others.
Finally on this, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the issue of state pensions, which was also raised at the JMC. I committed to follow up with the DWP, which I am on the cusp of doing. I very much hope that we will be able to resolve the issue, but I cannot promise any particular outcome because it is beyond my control, I am afraid.
Briefly on security and borders, which is one of our key priorities for the OTs, we are investing £18 million in security for the Caribbean through our integrated security fund. In the BVI, we are working with the Government to improve governance and increase law enforcement. Irregular migration and serious crime are threatening to overwhelm the Turks and Caicos Islands. The Foreign Office has taken measures, including tendering for a maritime surveillance aircraft, training law enforcement officers and helping fund electronic border infrastructure, but it is crucial for the Home Office to deploy its expertise and resources to prevent the territory becoming overwhelmed, which could happen. We will continue to work very hard on this issue as well, and I will continue to lobby my counterparts in other departments to ensure that every department of government fulfils its responsibilities in full to the overseas territories.
I am likewise very pleased to see representatives from Gibraltar here. I assure noble Lords that we are continuing to work with Gibraltar to conclude a treaty with the EU covering its interests. I will not be able to go into detail now, other than to say that we are steadfast in our support for Gibraltar and will not agree to anything at all that questions or compromises on sovereignty.
I realise that I am over time, but I feel obliged to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on equal marriage. I thank him for his work on this issue. As he would expect, I very strongly agree with the points he made, but policy on marriage is an area of devolved responsibility. That is simply a fact. It is the responsibility of the territories to legislate. It is worth acknowledging that a lot of progress has been made. The majority of territories have legal protections for, and recognition of, same-sex relationships and we are working hard to encourage others to do the same. I know that that is not the answer that he was hoping for, but we have to respect the fact that these islands are not subjects of direct rule from Westminster. There is a process that they have to follow.
I can see that I need to bring this to an end. I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The territories really are a massively important part of the UK family. I am deeply committed, as are the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others, to ensuring that we do everything we need, constitutionally and morally, to support these wonderful overseas territories. We continue to do so.
Assistive Technology: Support for Special Educational Needs
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use of assistive technology to support those with special educational needs.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Lord Addington (LD)
There is an old joke that when you get applause at the start of a speech, you should sit down and take it.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I want first to thank everybody who has taken the time to get here this late on a Thursday when we have a recess coming up. I should also make a declaration of interests, the most important of which is that I am chairman of Microlink PC. It is one of the bigger companies in this country, if not the biggest, dealing with this issue. There are many fields and many pies here; we have fingers in many of them.
My other interest is that I am president of the British Dyslexia Association and dyslexic. My last interest, which I probably do not have to declare but which is relevant to everything else, is that my life was transformed about 25 years ago when I got working assistive technology. I am a severe dyslexic; the way I communicated a written message was to dictate it. Suddenly, when I got assistive technology, I could do it myself, so if I sound a little messianic on this it is because I am talking from my own experience.
That was happening to somebody who had managed to get through the system due largely to the influence—shall we say?—of a tiger parent. It got me through the system, into the university structure and out the other side, because once you get over the first hurdle, people are generally quite willing towards you. Once you have proved you have some capacity, they are there to invest in you.
Unfortunately, most people do not have that support and help, or it is not given effectively, or they are simply missed. The most common experience for somebody with SENs, particularly with a neurodiverse background, is that you are told to try harder and work harder. We need the capacity to spot those with problems and then go to that wonderful and expanding box of tricks, which can help you get through. It is dependent on you having a working platform for it—normally, it is a computer; a tablet or something might work, but you need something to use it on. Once you have that, many things become possible.
So far, I have been talking about things which are to do with the communication of information. There are those Members—I am looking across the Room at two of them—who will have experience of bits of supportive technology that help with movement and other forms of support. I look forward to hearing about them.
I could mention all the areas where assistive technology is used, but we have only an hour. I could also mention the products if we had a couple of weeks—I reckon that there are about 40,000 of them. It is about making sure that people know what is out there and getting the right thing in front of them. The real point of this Question is what the Government are doing to make sure that happens. What the benefit is to the state is a reasonable question to ask on every occasion.
If you have assistive technology, and you need it, you stand a chance of becoming an independent and, one hopes, positive economic influence in your society. It may not be impossible otherwise, but it is much more difficult. Occasionally, you hear people talk about “the exceptional people who get through”. Any system that is dependent on you being either brilliant or lucky has fundamentally failed, so I hope that we will get a better understanding of what the Government are going to do about utilising this box of tools to allow people to go forward. That is really what I am aiming at today.
Look at our current system. I appreciate that the Government are now starting to look at and take some steps on it. The system we devised has a graduated approach up to the education, health and care plan, which replaced the old statement. I know the Government are working on making this an easier process but, let us face it, if it works it will be a little like the cavalry coming over the hill. It has become a legal process and it has probably done more to benefit specialist legal firms dealing with the education sector than anyone else. The Minister was not on that Bill, but I was, so maybe I should take some of the blame: we did not see it coming.
One of the other things that has happened is that the graduated approach that was supposed to come in behind it has become virtually irrelevant for many. The experience of many people I have spoken to is that you need the support of the plan to access help. Assistive technology is potentially much cheaper, if you have identified it correctly and got through. The problem is identifying who will benefit from it, even including those in the neurodiverse spectrum. I am going to talk about the needs closest to me, simply because I understand them slightly better.
For somebody who is dyslexic, identifying their level of need and the problem early enough means you stand a chance of bringing them assistance. The same is true of dyspraxia, dyscalculia and ADHD. There are a lot of devices here that will help all of them. Indeed, the same devices are often used differently. Trying to get them at the right time is about the identification process.
A lot of people are talking about screening programmes. How are we getting these screening programmes to identify people? With the best will in the world, people will be needed to administer them and, at the moment, the consensus is that people in the education sector are not well trained enough. I am sceptical about whether the new level 3 SENCO is the answer. The Minister will undoubtedly tell me otherwise, but are they going to identify and get people in the right way? Do the teachers know how to administer the screening process to identify that group?
Let us face it: no system is perfect, certainly not in its first phase. What will we do afterwards? The noble Baroness was instrumental in making me have a discussion with those providing alternative provision—AP. The one question that I asked them, which I was worried about, was what they were doing about screening when people get into AP. They said, “We are relying on the rest of the education system”. The noble Baroness said, and everybody agreed—when everybody agrees in politics you know something will go wrong—that most people in AP have a special educational need, almost by definition. Relying on the rest of the education system to spot it cannot be right; you will need another degree of assessment, because presumably somebody has already been missed.
If you can get assistive technology to somebody, they will have something that they can take with them to deal with things in a certain way, or at least to stand a chance. The identification of need tells them another thing: you can succeed; you can take part and join in. That is why I am trying to find out what the Government’s policy is. It is about that degree of training, support and structure: “Here’s a tool; get in there”.
It is also an opportunity to break the cycle of depending on a tiger parent. This is why, for instance, dyslexia was thought of as the middle-class disease—“exam-passing disease” would probably be a better term. Parents who have aspiration and have got through themselves ask, “Why is my child not the same?”
All the conditions that I have spoken about today have similar stories attached to them. There is a very black-humour joke: if you want to be a successful disabled child, choose your parents correctly. That has been true until this point and it is another condemnation of the system we have at the moment; you have had to fight to get through it.
Are we going to train teachers well enough to use this and give it to a person so that they can act on it for themselves for the rest of their lives? We should remember that most of these children are going to grow up. I have concentrated on education here but, hopefully, the workplace is waiting. What are we going to do? Can we make sure that people are prepared to take on this role?
I hope the Minister has some good news for me about the process and access to it, and can tell me that schools understand it and will bring it in. It should give independence, be cheaper and allow that person to have a model of process that is relevant outside the classroom. Traditional types of help, such as 25% extra time, are not going to be a great deal of help for you if you have to fill out a form at work under pressure, or if you have to complete a task on time. We need skills that are transferable. Assistive technology has the capacity to take on at least some of that role.
I hope the Minister and indeed all others here will put pressure on the Government to ensure that we take advantage of this, because if we do not we are missing a trick that can make people’s lives better, save money in the long term and improve the strength of our workforce. This is one occasion when the ha’porth of tar should be put on the boat.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and I congratulate my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on securing it. I declare my interests in technology as set out in the register and, like the noble Lord and other noble Lords in this debate, as a user of assistive technology. I am looking forward to all the contributions today, not least from my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, who has such expertise and experience to bring to bear in this area.
I have assistive technology in my pocket, on my desk, at home and at work. I could not have done my A-levels, gone to university or got a job, and indeed could not do my work here, without it—it is that significant. If you will, assistive technology is all around me. I ask the Minister: how are the Government ensuring that, for everyone who needs it, assistive technology is around all of us?
I did a report last year on the disabled students’ allowance. I was not asked to or commissioned to. Why did I do it? Because the allowance was not working. I came across many findings around assistive technology from all those who kindly gave of their time—students past and present, those who have experienced DSA and assistive technology and those in positions of responsibility in higher and further education. Do the Government agree with all 20 of the recommendations that I made? Specifically, on assistive technology, is asking for a contribution of £200 towards a laptop from students entitled to assistive technology not a misreading of equalities legislation?
I spoke to an extraordinary student studying architecture. They were told they could not have the laptop required to run the architecture software; they had to have just a more standard laptop. How is that assistive technology? A laptop that could not host the software essential to the course meant that the student had to get a second laptop to do their course on. That may have been technology but it was not assistive. Does my noble friend agree that that is a waste of a precious resource?
As for the time it was taking students to get assistive technology, it was a case of months rather than weeks. I give a shoutout to my old university—I declare an interest in that I was at Cambridge University—which took this service in-house and turned a three-month wait into a three-day delivery. If Cambridge can do it, can it not be done across the system? The services have been tendered since then, so can my noble friend the Minister update the Committee on how that tender is running? What are the early signs from the new processes in place? Similarly, what is happening with the DEAs? What training is in place there? What is happening with the AT teach and learn service? How is that going?
Ultimately, this is about enabling and emancipating talent—be that at school, university, further education or employment. Does my noble friend not agree that it would make sense to have an assistive technology passport which started from the first moment an individual who had a requirement stepped into school and ran throughout their time in education, higher education, further education or employment? Whatever journey or pathway an individual wanted to pursue, the passport would already be in place so that there would not have to be forms, explanations and, worse, justifications at every stage. We found that students who had done incredibly well in education using a particular type of kit were then told for the next step of the journey that it could not be recommended. How can that be right? This surely should be personalised, with the learner and then the worker at the centre, wrapping the services and assistive technology around the individual. That is the approach we take in other areas of policy. Would my noble friend not agree that that is completely the approach that we should and must take in this area?
What are we up against here? Can my noble friend confirm to the Committee what the current disability employment gap and disability pay gap are? I repeat those two questions for those who are blind and visually impaired. What is the Government’s plan to close all those gaps so that we get to something which at least starts to look, feel and be like equality?
Finally, can my noble friend update the Committee on what is happening with the centre for assistive and accessible technology? It is a great initiative. What progress is being made on that?
Ultimately, AT is the right brand—it is a great brand. But may I push my noble friend further on this? Why do she and the department not consider this enabling and emancipating technology, which enables and emancipates talent? Does my noble friend not agree that, for all those people who would benefit from emancipating technology, it is long overdue that ET came home?
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for securing this debate. My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond is a very hard act to attempt to follow, but I will endeavour to do so. His speech had such powerful and authoritative personal experience.
I declare an interest as chair of the Institute of Directors’ commission, “The Future of Business: Harnessing Diverse Talent for Success”, and as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Assistive Technology, with Lilian Greenwood in the other place as my co-chair. It was in the latter capacity that I was delighted to co-author the foreword to the excellent APPG report by Geena Vabulas, Talent and Technology: Building Bridges to Employment for Disabled People—because, as my noble friend quite rightly said, this is ultimately about talent.
I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister will have myriad reports to wade through at any one time, and I do not envy her that task. I am not assuming that she will have had a chance to read the APPG’s Talent & Technology report, but I commend it to her. While much of it focuses, as the title would suggest, on employment, four of its 10 findings look at the education end of the bridge to employment. While I am not disputing that education has its own intrinsic worth, I think we would all agree that, without it, the prospect of an individual being able to realise their potential, especially in employment, is inevitably limited. So it is an essential part of a much bigger life chances equation.
The report’s first finding was that current systems of assistive technology, or AT provision, leave disabled people in digital black holes at key transition points that affect their ability to find and secure employment. The APPG would encourage the Government to raise their sights and aim higher to ensure equitable access to digital for disabled people in their efforts to close the disability employment gap—mentioned by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond—which remains obstinately at around 30%, as the Minister knows. A practical way of doing this would be for the Government to appoint and empower a national assistive technology champion to develop and deliver, in collaboration with disabled people, a framework on disabled people’s life transitions, including between different educational settings and at different stages.
The report’s second finding was particularly worrying: disabled students are still leaving education without knowledge of work-based AT provision, without the skills to use it in the workplace, and without the confidence to navigate these issues when starting a new job—for example, as my noble friend mentioned, when having to justify the use of specific equipment, which could so easily be addressed by having a passport that enabled them to get on with the job from day one.
That is why the APPG also recommends that education providers should ensure that careers education, information, advice and guidance—or CEIAG, which is yet another acronym—and disability support and guidance are joined-up, so that education leavers know how to access AT and support to enable their transition into employment. It also informs the APPG’s recommendation that the DfE should produce and promote guidance and resources for education providers on AT and workplaces and preparing for employment. This should include information about Access to Work and other routes to securing timely access to AT.
I mention that it should be timely because the final recommendation relating to the DfE, as well as to DWP, concerns Access to Work. At the moment, the scheme does not put in place AT fast enough for disabled students on short-term work placements, and education professionals can be unaware of this DWP-sponsored support. This makes collaboration between the two departments essential to ensure that disabled people on work placements, traineeships or apprenticeships are able to use AT from day one of their placements. I do not think this need involve a lot of work and money. The support could be developed as an enhanced Access to Work offer, jointly sponsored by DfE and DWP, or as a fund available to education providers, or a combination of both elements.
I would be really grateful if my noble friend the Minister could address the report’s recommendations in writing and detail not only what the Government have done but what they plan to do in response and, crucially, when.
Statistics make it clear that AT is not a niche subject. Indeed, only last year a survey found that nearly a third of higher education students reported using captions or transcriptions. I could go on, but what is equally clear is that the onus should not be— as, unfortunately, it too often can be—on the individual student to self-advocate. The Government need to accept their responsibility as the facilitator of appropriate, effective and timely provision.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support my noble friend Lord Addington in this debate. It is a topic where he has great expertise and enthusiasm. I can share the enthusiasm but, sadly, not the expertise.
Close to home, one of my grandsons has terrible handwriting. He has had more lessons than I can say, since he was very little, poor little thing—well, not “little”, because he is enormous now—but his enthusiasm for writing is outweighed only by the perplexity of anyone trying to read it. He was given permission to do both GCSEs and A-levels with a computer, gained excellent grades and is about to graduate in singing from Southampton University. Obviously, his inability to write legibly should have been a special educational need, although it was never classified as such. The family knew that he was very bright, but we were all extremely grateful that technology stepped in and saved the day, because there is no way that the examiners would have trawled through his scrawly scripts.
We are grateful to RNIB and Guide Dogs for their briefings. Very many years ago, when I was at college, there was a blind student in my class. I well remember a lecture where we took out pencils and paper to take notes. This was long before the days of technology, and this student had a tape recorder to be able to revise later. The lecturer was furious and told him he was not to be recorded. He was not a great lecturer, so perhaps that is why he did not want to be recorded, but his subject was one we needed to know, so we were all sitting there poised. We were left wondering how we could help our blind colleague if he was to be denied the only mechanism that he had for revising the lecture, given that taking notes was not possible for him.
More recently, I was on a committee with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. I greatly admired the way he used an impressive bit of kit. He seemed to absorb all the pages of script which the rest of us could skim-read but he, presumably, could not. My other memory of that committee is of my feet every now and again feeling very warm, and realising that his beautiful dog had decided to go to sleep on them—a friendly Peer and a friendly dog. The noble Lord asked some highly relevant questions, which I trust the Minister will answer.
We have two other blind Peers, of course: the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Low, who are great contributors to debate. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has an impressive record, both in government and out. He, like others, has a great memory for voices and greets people when he recognises a voice. From our Benches, I can see the noble Lord, Lord Low, typing away at his machine. I much regret that we have not seen him since he had a really bad fall down the stairs here some weeks ago. I am sure we all send our very best wishes for his speedy recovery and hope that he will soon be back in his place on the Cross Benches, with the valuable contribution he has been making for very many years. All three noble Lords are evidence that sight loss does not mean loss of value to the community, and their dexterity with assistive technology is extremely inspirational.
When I worked for City & Guilds on vocational qualifications, we always had advice from the deaf community on letters, words or phrases which would be misunderstood or muddled with others. It can be difficult for those of us who do not suffer from disabilities to appreciate where danger may lie. Confusing “b” and “p” was one elephant trap, and there were certain abstract phrases which caused confusion that they always asked to be rewritten. We would rewrite questions and tests to ensure that no one hard of hearing was disadvantaged. The technology for deaf people has improved hugely in recent years too.
My noble friend, as he said, is much involved with dyslexia. As expected, the British Dyslexia Association sent a very useful brief. As others have indicated, it is truly important that children should be diagnosed early, as with any special educational need, so that remedies can be applied as soon as possible. It is not acceptable for children to miss out on schooling because no one has spotted or diagnosed why they are failing.
These days, we have the wherewithal to diagnose early. Years ago, when I was at school, there was a girl branded stupid who was actually very intelligent, and she went on to be a highly successful entrepreneur and fundraiser. She was diagnosed very late as dyslexic, a syndrome we had not heard of in my young day. She would have had a much happier school life if her “stupidity” had been recognised for what it was and measures put in place to help her, instead of constantly seating her at the back of the class and assuming that she would not be able to answer any questions. We call for all teacher training to include the common disabilities teachers are likely to find among children they teach and for teachers to learn tolerance if children are having difficulties—as well as patience, which of course all teachers need in spades.
It is, as ever, a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, who is a powerful advocate and evidence of courage and determination overcoming physical disability. His contributions to debates are always thoughtful and well worthy of being taken forward.
Can the Minister say what provision is made in teacher training to ensure that special educational needs are identified and treated appropriately? There is so much these days to ensure that anyone suffering a physical or learning disability can flourish. Alongside that, I hope that all children are taught kindness and compassion. How can government ensure that accessibility is part of the conversation in all areas of policy, regulation and service delivery?
This debate has thrown up some fascinating issues. Once again, I thank my noble friend for introducing it.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for putting forward a debate on such an important issue and for his personal insight into the current and potential use of assistive technology to support those with special educational needs. It was of particular interest to hear how assistive technology has transformed his life and could transform the lives of others. It is clear that a considerable range of products is available to do this.
Those points were echoed in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who made clear how reliant he is on assistive technology and how all those who need it should have assistive technology, as he put it, all around them. I understood his clear frustration at the findings underlying his report, that students were not able to access appropriate assistive technology, and the damage this could do to their ability to undertake their courses effectively.
Like others speaking in this debate, I have family members with dyslexia, dyspraxia and autism, and understand to a small extent how hard it can be for the 1.5 million children with SEND in the UK, and for their parents and carers. It is important to focus on the scale of the issues during a debate of this nature. We know, for example, that the number of children on an education, health and care plan has gone up by 50% since 2016. We know that this is an equalities issue. Those eligible for free school meals, black pupils and children in care are disproportionately likely to be assessed as having special educational needs. We also know, as has been pointed out, that children in alternative provision are far more likely to have a special educational need. This makes it all the more important that provision of appropriate assistive technology is not left to parental income or chance but becomes part of the provision by default.
We know that the current support for many children with SEND is insufficient. As the Children’s Commissioner has said, current provision is leaving them in a “vicious cycle” of poor outcomes. Families often have to battle their way through the system for a diagnosis, for support following that diagnosis, and for every stage of their child’s education. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, early diagnosis is vital, but even when diagnosed, and despite huge family efforts, only one in three children receive the correct level of support.
We know that that lack of support, and the battle that parents and carers face, has real consequences. Seven out of 10 parents told the Disabled Children’s Partnership in a recent survey that their disabled child’s health had deteriorated because of a lack of the correct types and levels of support. Despite that, much of the Government’s SEND and alternative provision plan does not come into effect until 2025-26.
It is really important that we do not assume that assistive technology will solve all problems but, used correctly and with the right support, it can make a life-changing and life-chance-changing difference. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, highlighted that it should be the right tool at the right time.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for forwarding me information from the National Deaf Children’s Society that makes it clear that a significant minority of children have reasonable requests for hearing or listening devices fail, and that 15% of families told the Deaf Children Today survey that they had been turned down for a hearing or listening device. The society has also found that assistive listening devices are not always used properly in schools, which can lead to children stopping using them. That really is not acceptable.
Because of the breadth of the category that SEND covers—the range of conditions and issues that fall within the remit of that categorisation—the provision in relation to assistive technology has to be condition-specific but also child-specific. I support the suggestion made by the National Deaf Children’s Society that, when the department develops new national standards, it should create deaf-specific national standards, and that it should do so for specific standards appropriate to a range of disabilities and needs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, highlighted the need for appropriate teaching within the teacher-training programme so that teachers can identify signs that a child might require assistance, and how to deal with that. Can the Minister confirm whether that will be the case in relation to the new national standards?
There is no doubt that assistive technology in schools can be useful in improving the welfare of students and their achievements by boosting confidence, increasing independence and helping them to build skills that are key to continuing education and entering the workforce. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, focused on the potential use of a passport so that people do not have to argue their case at every stage, a point echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin.
In 2020, as we have heard, a DfE literature review found that
“AT is an under-utilised intervention”.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, in his description of the potential digital black hole that people can find themselves in, and on the need for education and assistive technology to provide a bridge to employment. The DfE assistive technology stakeholder reports also make that clear.
Knowing what we do, and knowing that people with disabilities are less likely to achieve further education or higher education qualifications and less likely to be in work, there is simply no excuse for the slow pace of the rollout of resources in schools. It is therefore bizarre, frankly, that, after an initial assistive-technology training trial resulted in good outcomes last year, the Government are rolling it out to just 150 further schools in the first instance. For those children who can now access these valuable tools, that is a good thing—I am not saying otherwise—but it pushes back any potential national rollout at a time when SEND pupils desperately need help now. It is vital that the Government make every effort to increase investment and training, and focus on providing pupils with the support that they need. No child can afford to lose the opportunities they should have within the school system, but children with SEND will be failed if this issue is not addressed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his tireless work in this area and for tabling this important debate. People talk about your Lordships’ House and the expertise that resides within it, and this debate was an example of very deep experience and insight.
As we heard, many of your Lordships have personally benefited from assistive technology or know people who have. Such technology can help reduce barriers to learning for students with special educational needs and disabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, reminded us of how things were—not in a good way—with the episode of her fellow student and the tape recorder. We all hope that such episodes are behind children and students in classrooms today.
As your Lordships noted, we published a rapid literature review of assistive technology in 2020. That found that assistive technology is underused in education, and it identified strong and exceedingly clear evidence of the benefits of specific types of assistive technology, such as alternative and augmented communication devices.
My noble friend Lord Holmes challenged me to assure the Committee that all students who need access to devices will get it. As he knows better than anyone, the question is more complicated than that. It is about getting not just the devices but the support to make sure they are used effectively. I hope my noble friend will join me in recognising that the Government made a huge investment for all children during the pandemic, of over £0.5 billion—£520 million—to provide just under 2 million devices for learning and training, including on the effective use of assistive technology. The technology sector has also invested heavily in developing built-in accessibility features. That means that schools and colleges, now more than ever, have greater access to mainstream assistive technology.
The specialist assistive technology market is also growing at pace, with products such as alternative and augmentative communication devices becoming cheaper, smaller and easier to maintain. However, we want to develop a more robust understanding of the potential benefits of using built-in assistive technology features to seamlessly support SEND learners, as well as their peers—including, for example, those for whom English is an additional language.
We also know that, for a long time, teachers have found assistive technology difficult to use. In our 2021 edtech landscape survey, 57% of teachers said that software was only sometimes or rarely supporting their SEND pupils. That is why, last year, we went ahead and piloted training to increase school staff confidence and capability in using assistive technology. We initially trained staff at 79 mainstream schools in England and conducted an independent evaluation, which gave us promising results, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross. Some 75% of participants said the training had contributed or would contribute to improvements in the support for pupils with SEND to a great or moderate extent. Three-quarters of participants also thought it would remove barriers to learning for children with SEND.
Following those promising results, we are running a second training programme over a longer period, with about 150 schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, challenged why this was a smaller increment. There will also be a more in-depth evaluation. The difference in the second study is in exploring the longer-term impact of assistive technology training on schools, staff and learners, so that we have the fullest possible picture of how we can support wider SEND CPD before potentially rolling it out further. There is clearly an option, once we have all the evidence and understand what the evaluation is telling us. One option is to build this kind of training into SEND CPD or wider staff training, and we will also consider how to apply it within FE colleges and special schools.
We learned a great deal about the use of technology in education during the pandemic. We learned that education requires more than a device and an app. We are clear that the use of technology in a classroom should be pedagogically driven and informed by best practice. We are working with leaders, researchers and industry to build the strongest possible evidence base for the effective use of technology and to make sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, that we give students the right tools, at the right time.
We also need and appreciate the work that the edtech industry does with us to make sure that the evidence base is as robust as possible. That includes thinking hard about what data we collect and at what level of granularity.
Of course, effective assistive technology use also requires strong SEND provision at every level. That is why our SEND and alternative provision improvement plan sets out the work we will do to ensure that all children receive the support they need early in their educational journey and, crucially, that the support stays with them for as long as they need it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, emphasised the importance of early identification, and we agree with them absolutely. We believe and hope that our national standards will create a system which allows for earlier, more accurate and more consistent identification of need so that support can be targeted most effectively.
As for the issues around employment, my noble friend Lord Shinkwin raised some powerful examples in his speech. I would be delighted to write to him in response to his question about the APPG’s report. I also very much welcome his emphasis on careers and on the co-creation of materials with people who have special educational needs and disabilities.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Holmes, raised the issue of an adjustment passport. I think noble Lords will be aware that we have been working with the Department for Work and Pensions to pilot such a passport to smooth the transition into employment and to support people when they are changing jobs, including people with special educational needs and disabilities. That passport will capture an individual’s in-work support needs, including their assistive technology requirements, and empower them to have more confident discussions with employers.
I know that the Department for Work and Pensions has also been working in partnership with colleagues at Microsoft to train work coaches on accessibility features such as Immersive Reader and Magnifier, using technology to create accessible experiences for jobseekers with special educational needs and disabilities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about the importance of staff training and referred to the new SENCO NPQ. We believe that this will play an important role in achieving the goals we and the Committee have to improve outcomes for children and young people with SEND by ensuring that SENCOs receive consistent, high-quality, evidence-based and practical training. We are working with the Education Endowment Foundation, and we have a SEND expert in the role of lead drafter in the drafting and preparation of the qualification.
My noble friend Lord Holmes asked about work in relation to DSA; I thank him again for his report. As my noble friend knows, students have told the Student Loans Company that the current process is extremely long and complicated. We heard examples of that in the Committee this afternoon. Students have had to contact multiple companies to get the equipment they need. We really believe that the new service will be much more streamlined, and that the experience for students will be very much improved, including in relation to the delivery of assistive technology, familiarisation and training in its use, and ongoing support afterwards.
In relation to my noble friend’s question about the disability pay gap, the data I have about the median pay of disabled and non-disabled employees is that the gap in 2019 was 14.1%. It fell slightly to 13.8% in 2021.
My noble friend Lord Holmes also asked about the centre for assistive technology. We have a commitment in the National Disability Strategy, but it is currently paused due to the High Court ruling because of the consultation not complying with the rules. I am happy to write to him with more detail on that.
I close by thanking all noble Lords for sharing their experiences and for their questions. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about pressure needing to be applied to His Majesty’s Government to focus on this issue. I stress that no pressure is needed: this is very much in our sights, and we share the aspiration of the noble Lord and of my noble friends Lord Holmes and Lord Shinkwin that this is a way we can unleash the talent of people with special educational needs and disabilities and free them to achieve their potential. We will work tirelessly to do that.
House of Lords
Food Price Rises: Impact on Low-Income Families
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hussein-Ece
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the rise in food prices on low-income families.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, we remain concerned about the impact of current global inflationary pressures on low-income families. This is a government priority and the reason why we have taken decisive action to support those on low incomes. The Chancellor met food manufacturers on Tuesday to discuss food costs and to explore ways to ease pressure on households. He also met the Competition and Markets Authority to discuss its investigations into the fuel and grocery markets.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and that the Government are now seriously looking at this, but we know that inflation in basic foods is running at 19%, the highest rate since 1977, and polls show that one in six parents is going without—going hungry—so they can afford to feed their children, while supermarkets are still making record profits. The Minister may have seen reports that families with babies cannot afford baby formula, with the CEO of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service warning:
“We know that families experiencing food poverty resort to unsafe feeding methods, such as … watering down formula”.
What is the take-up of the Healthy Start allowance? Will the Minister urge his department to at least look at increasing its value, which is just £8.50 a week for children from birth to one year old and a staggeringly low £4.25 a week for children between one and four? Are the Government really going to stand by as babies are placed at risk of malnutrition and serious illness due to the cost of living crisis and the soaring cost of infant formula?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
There were a number of questions there from the noble Baroness. We know that it is tough for households and businesses across the UK at the moment and are doing whatever we can to support them with the cost of living. The noble Baroness will know that £94 billion is earmarked for giving out. On her question about supporting families who cannot afford the rising cost of infant formula, she will know that in cases of difficulty all local authorities should have an emergency formula provision pathway in place. Families can access this by talking to their health visitor or midwife, who can signpost them to local support. For women who cannot or choose not to breastfeed, Healthy Start provides support towards the cost of first-stage infant formula.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on organising the Farm to Fork summit but echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness who asked the Question. Does my noble friend share my concern that farmers are not receiving these increasing costs, which they are covering, of energy prices and food production, added to the shortage of staff? Will the Government use every opportunity to investigate the rising profits that the supermarkets are recording?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I take note of my noble friend’s point on the Farm to Fork food summit, which allowed the sector to get together, discuss the future, provide further innovative methods on food supply and discuss the current situation. Supermarkets’ profit margins are actually surprisingly low; I have some figures that I can pass on.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, with ever-increasing food prices, the Trussell Trust has said that 40% of people on universal credit are using food banks. Is it not about time that the Government looked at this benefit and increased it?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We remain very aware that food banks are being used to a great extent. As I have done before, I pay tribute to those, including charities, who so ably and selflessly run them. With the Family Resources Survey that we picked up on recently, we are very aware of the issues and are determined to ensure that people do not and should not have to go to food banks.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, in the diocese which I serve, charities in Harlow alone have fed more than 1 million people in the last year, which, frighteningly, represents a slower than the average demand for food banks nationally. I draw the Minister’s attention to the Bounty Club, which works with local businesses and people on the edge of crisis, helping them access a large bag of fresh food for £2.50, saving households on average £20 to £40 a week. Demand in Harlow is such that queues are regularly seen from St Paul’s Church right down the street. What assessment have the Government made of the number of people who are on the cusp of falling into poverty? What strategies are they considering to prevent people requiring the use of their local food bank or even charities such as the Bounty Club?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I take note of the point the right reverend Prelate makes about Harlow. We are alert to those who do fall into poverty. What I can tell her is that in 2021-22, there were 1.7 million fewer people in absolute poverty after housing costs than in 2009-10, but I am very aware of the current situation. All I can say is that we continue to keep an eye on this: we are spending £276 billion through the welfare system in 2023-24, including around £124 billion on people of working age and children, and £152 billion on pensioners, to help with this aspect.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the reality is that food is now the new energy; but it is worse, because households spend more of their budgets on food and it is not cheaper in the summer. In fact, it is worse, because the kids do not get free school meals. Food price inflation of 19% is a disaster for poor families. The Minister will know—because he has read the evidence—that those on low incomes, even in work, are already buying own-brand supermarket goods; they are already skipping meals; and they are already going to food banks. There is nowhere else for them to go. Is any thinking going on in the Government as to what they will do right now to help those families this summer?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Of course, the noble Baroness is right. I said at the beginning that much work is going on with regard to interaction with the supermarkets. A number of supermarkets have some urgent initiatives on the go. For example, ASDA has invested £73 million, allowing it to drop and lock prices for over 100 household products. The prices of these products were dropped by 12% on average and will remain this way until the end of the year. Morrisons has similar initiatives: it has cut prices on more than 500 products. It is more than this, and the noble Baroness will know that it is not just the UK. There are other countries, including Germany, where food price inflation remains high, at around 18% or 19%.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, have the Government made any assessment of the impact on the food industry, and therefore the impact on prices for consumers, of the new labelling requirements, which appear to be quite onerous and are required under the Windsor Framework? The Government are now saying that these will apply not just to goods going to Northern Ireland but right across the United Kingdom. Severe concerns have been raised about the impact on food prices of those requirements.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I do not have any figures to support an answer to give to the noble Lord, but what I can say—to which I alluded earlier—is that, in terms of supermarkets and profits, looking at the money side, there is no reason to believe that supermarket profit margins have significantly increased recently. The overall profits of Tesco and Sainsbury’s fell by 51% and 62% respectively in 2022-23. On the link with Northern Ireland, I will certainly look at my answer, and I may well write to the noble Lord.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the big problem is with processed food—the more processing, the higher the prices? Fresh food is another matter. The price of wheat this time last year was more than £300 a tonne; it is currently less than £200 a tonne. That is actually less than it was before the Ukraine war started. What effect does the Minister think that will soon start to have on the price of bread and meat?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The truth is that many people on low incomes find it easier, and sometimes cheaper, to buy processed food. That is a fact. Having said that, we would encourage people to go to the local market to buy food. Again, the supermarkets are really stepping up to help those on low incomes.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I heard what the Minister said about the Government doing everything they can to help, but I do not think that it is everything. Are they considering extending free school meals? What are they doing about energy bills? An earlier questioner asked about this, but there was no real answer. What are they doing to crack down on the profiteering by supermarkets? The Minister gave an example of one or two supermarkets, but they are not helping people on low incomes.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I take issue with the noble Lord, because they are, and I have made that clear with some examples. On his point about free school meals, under this Government eligibility has been extended several times, and to more groups of children than under any other Government over the past half a century. That includes the introduction of universal infant free school meals and further education free school meals. Approximately 1.9 million pupils are claiming free school meals, and it cost about £1 billion a year. A lot has been done in this area.
NHS National Health Inequalities Improvement Programme
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the NHS National Health Inequalities Improvement Programme plans to review and improve the nutrition of free school meals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The focus of the NHS healthcare inequalities improvement programme is the delivery of healthcare services. Free school meals are outside its remit. The Department for Education continues to keep school food standards under review. The current standards provide a robust yet flexible framework to ensure that pupils in England continue to receive high-quality and nutritious food. Developing healthy habits early in life can influence health in childhood and reduce the risk of diet-related diseases in later life.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Who actually is responsible if one tries to change the formulation of school meals for children? In previous debates on obesity, he has stressed the importance of reducing calories. The Government have estimated the number of calories that need to go down to get child obesity down. As we are giving children so much sugar in school meals and such highly processed food, why do they not run a trial with less sugar and healthier food than we are doing at the moment to try to deliver on the calorie objective, which he has talked about previously?
Lord Markham (Con)
First, I thank the noble Lord for the work that he does in this space; I know it is something very close to his heart. It is the school foods standards that set and define the formulation in the food and drinks provided by schools. That is all through the school day: breakfast, lunch and afterwards. They were due to be reviewed around the time of Covid in 2019; clearly, that did not happen then, so we are looking again at whether we should be reviewing those. Precisely in that, we shall be looking at levels of calorific intake.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend will know, in the short term a poor diet can lead to stress, inability to concentrate and tiredness. In the longer term it can lead to obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and indeed heart disease. Of course, my noble friend will be aware that there are great inequalities within ethnic minorities. Can he say what the Government are doing to reduce the inequalities and ensure that micronutrients play an important part in the promotion of the food strategy?
Lord Markham (Con)
First, I wish my noble friend a happy birthday. I totally support her question. The most important thing with regard to inequalities—funnily enough, this was the answer to an earlier question—is the use of free school meals. I think we can all welcome the fact that 37.5% of children now receive free school meals and therefore a nutritious start to life. Clearly, that is the best way to make sure that children, particularly those with potential inequalities, are getting a healthy start in life, as well as the under-fours clubs to make sure that they get healthy food.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, according to Henry Dimbleby, the Government’s public food procurement system is dominated by a few very large corporations, creating little incentive for innovation or improvement. Can the Minister give us an update on the trials in south-west England, in which small, local, high-quality food suppliers can get into public procurement—for example, to schools and hospitals? I understand that early evidence reports better quality and choice at no increased cost.
Lord Markham (Con)
Absolutely. Again, there are also very good grounds for locally sourcing in that way in terms of the environment and reducing the carbon footprint. I must admit to not being very familiar with some of the pilots mentioned, so I will find out and get back to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the latest data from the National Child Measurement Programme showed that among 10 to 11 year-olds at school, almost 38% were overweight, of whom nearly two-thirds were obese. Do the Government recognise that this represents severe malnutrition in that cohort and that public health should be involved in the planning and inspection of school meals to try to improve that figure? These children will become health problems for the whole of the nation going forward unless their malnutrition is corrected.
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness. It was said in answer to a Question not so long ago that the hypothesis about much of the reduction in increases in life expectancy in the G7 nations, apart from Japan, is that it is very much linked to obesity, and that starts early on in life. Education is a key part of that, but the things we are starting to do as regards the placement of foods in supermarkets are already having an impact, and the reaction of the industry to that has been the reformulation of some foods which has already taken out 14% of sugar and 20% of salt—but clearly there is a lot more to be done.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend the Minister and reassure him that I was not trying to answer the previous question. However, in answer to a previous question, my noble friend the Minister mentioned that the responsibility of school meals and nutrition lies with the Department for Education. Is he aware of any conversations and interaction between the Department for Education, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, and the Department of Health and Social Care?
Lord Markham (Con)
Absolutely. We work very closely together. The Healthy Start programme gives seven fruits a day to kids up to the age of seven to make sure that they get fruit and vegetables, and that is very much a joint initiative. Clearly, we need to be joined at the hip on some things, but as regards school meals, the DfE takes the lead.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the levelling up White Paper promised to design and test a new approach to ensure compliance with school food standards. Although pilot schemes were meant to start last September, a recent Written Answer from the Schools Minister stated that
“standards are being kept under review”,
with no sign of the pilot scheme. Have the Government given up on their promise and does the Minister consider the existing standards for school meals and the means of compliance sufficient to tackle nutritional inequalities across the country?
Lord Markham (Con)
As mentioned previously, the review did not happen because of Covid, and it is very much within the plans that it is time to look at school standards again. Clearly, that is key to making sure that there is a healthy diet in schools, and of course that goes across the board.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister explain whether the Department of Health is working with other departments to consider funding families entitled to free school meals with additional allowances during the summer vacation in the light of the current cost of food and the need, as he has acknowledged, to provide adequate nutrition to promote health in young people?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes. It is worth reiterating that the 37.5% free school meal level is an achievement, as is the fact that all infant schoolchildren receive free school meals—higher than ever before. However, the noble Baroness is correct in terms of what happens during holidays. That is why we have the holiday activity fund, which in the summer holidays, for instance, provides meals for four of the weeks, as well as for another week in winter. Clearly, we need to keep that under review to make sure that that is sufficient.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, currently some Jewish children are having to survive due to the funding formula on a bagel every dinnertime. Is that acceptable and, if not, which Minister will sort it out?
Lord Markham (Con)
I hope that every child would have something more nutritious and healthier than just a bagel. I will happily discuss that with the noble Lord; I am not familiar with that particular case but it is something I will happily take up.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness’s question on the South West Food Hub, I was on the advisory board until last week. That project has now folded, purely through lack of engagement from the Cabinet Office and the procurement services. Can the Minister speak to his colleagues at the Cabinet Office to see whether they can re-engage in these dynamic procurement activities for local farmers?
Lord Markham (Con)
I would be happy to. I need to find out more first, and I would be delighted if there was some information or if we could meet on this, but I would be happy to take it up.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
The Minister has twice cited the figure of 37.5% of children now receiving free school meals, which, as he rightly says, is an achievement of a sort. However, if the standard of food those children are receiving is insufficiently good—and there appears to be some evidence of that from the information that has been going around the House this morning—adding to the number on the list of those receiving free school meals, although admirable in terms of the numbers, may be contributing to the problem. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Markham (Con)
I do not think anyone would say that the current school food standards are insufficient. I think the feeling is that it has been a while since they were changed because of Covid, and it is time to ask whether improvements can be made, because this is an ever-evolving situation. So I would not agree with that categorisation, but we should indeed always be looking to see whether we can make better choices.
Parole Board Recommendations: Open Conditions
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask His Majesty’s Government what proportion of Parole Board recommendations for prisoners to be transferred to open conditions were accepted by the Secretary of State for Justice from January to March; and on what grounds such recommendations can be rejected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the Question refers to the transfer of a life or other indeterminate sentence prisoner to an open prison. That is an operational decision for the Secretary of State. He is not obliged to follow the Parole Board’s advice but will take it into account. From January to March 2023, the Secretary of State considered 90 recommendations by the Parole Board for a prisoner to be moved to open prison. The Secretary of State accepted 14 recommendations and rejected 76.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, it is an old saying in Parliament, “Never ask a question of a Minister unless you know the answer already”, and I read with interest the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on 27 April. The figure that the noble and learned Lord has quoted is less than one in six referrals from the Parole Board, and I cannot get my head around how small it is. The Minister outlines the criteria to be taken into consideration, but the Parole Board making the recommendation will surely know what criteria the Government are going on. What is the point in it keeping on making referrals if the Secretary of State is not going to listen?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I think I should clarify that this particular advisory function of the Parole Board has no statutory basis. It dates historically to the time when the Parole Board was part of the Home Office. The Parole Board has no operational responsibility for the safety and security of the open estate, nor for the rehabilitation of prisoners, nor for the categorisation of which prisoners are suitable for which prisons. In June 2022, the Secretary of State adopted new criteria for the transfer of prisoners to open prisons and unfortunately, in the Secretary of State’s view, those criteria have not been fully followed by the Parole Board’s advice. Those decisions by the Secretary of State can of course be challenged in the courts.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, in the first quarter of last year, 88 references were made from the Parole Board, and 80 were accepted. The change over the past year can have nothing to do with whether the Parole Board is following the Ministry of Justice criteria, which say
“the prisoner is assessed as low risk of abscond; and … a period in open conditions is considered essential to inform future decisions about release”.
The Parole Board is following the criteria laid down by the MoJ, but the MoJ is following a different route, and the question is: why?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who has enormous experience and expertise in this area, the Secretary of State’s view is that the Parole Board is not entirely following the change in criteria that was adopted in June 2022, particularly in regard to the essential nature of the move to open conditions to inform future decisions about release. There is indeed a further condition that the
“transfer to open conditions would not undermine public confidence in the Criminal Justice System”.
That is a matter for the Secretary of State.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, in March, the High Court held that the previous Secretary of State, Dominic Raab, had acted unlawfully by instructing probation officers not to give the Parole Board their view of the risks of release of particular prisoners if that conflicted with his views. Can the Minister assure me that the new Secretary of State for Justice, Alex Chalk, who I warmly welcome to his post, has a better understanding of the importance of the independence of the Parole Board and its processes?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Secretary of State will of course abide by the recent decision of the High Court and will entirely respect the constitutional position of the Parole Board. I should add that what we are talking about today in relation to the 76 decisions is 32 prisoners serving a mandatory life sentence for murder, 11 serving a discretionary life sentence for rape and various other sexual offences, eight on an IPP sentence for serious sexual offences and another 25 for serious offences, all involving violence against the person.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does my noble and learned friend share my concern that too many people are going to prison? Has a recent assessment been made of the effects of community restorative justice, which I saw in Northern Ireland when I was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place and which was extremely effective?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My noble friend makes a very fair point. That is a matter primarily for the Sentencing Council, but the Government will of course keep it under review.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, we long ago got rid of Home Office Ministers setting tariffs in life sentences because it permitted politics to become involved in the justice system. Can my noble and learned friend assure me that of the 76 decisions made by the Secretary of State rejecting a Parole Board recommendation, politics played no part whatever in any of them?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, those decisions were all taken on the merits. I repeat that it is an operational matter which prison the prisoner should be in. That is quite distinct from the question of whether a prisoner should be released, which is the primary role of the Parole Board.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the principal reason that people are worried about this is because they believe that release straight from closed conditions and high security conditions increases the risk of reoffending and that a period in open conditions is very helpful in reducing that risk. Will the Minister return to the House at a future date to inform us of what has happened as a consequence of the decisions taken by the Secretary of State? Preventing a period in open conditions does not prevent release. All it does is prevent preparation for release.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am entirely happy to give the House whatever information it requires at any time, and I fully accept that a move to an open prison is potentially one aspect of a prisoner’s progression towards release, but in modern thinking, it is not the only route. A number of closed prisons operate prisoner progression programmes towards release direct from closed prisons, and those relatively new programmes are enjoying results. Several hundred prisoners are released every year from those closed conditions without, as far as I know, any evidence that that poses a risk to the community.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, does the Minister accept that short-term prison sentences tend to lead to very high reoffending rates and that prisoners often come out more criminal than they went in. If we can ensure that community sentences really address the underlying causes of criminality—and the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee is looking at that—will the Minister accept that short-term prison sentences really should be abandoned in favour of community sentences?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I cannot as of today accept that proposition. I entirely see the arguments, it is a very big question and I am sure we will discuss it on a future occasion.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, presumably the Secretary of State has access to all the information that the Parole Board has, and the Parole Board is well aware of all the relevant matters, so why the difference? Should the Secretary of State give reasons for rejecting the recommendations?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Secretary of State gives reasons in every individual case, and those cases can be challenged.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, has my noble and learned friend given consideration to what might be called the ripple effect of the change in criteria on Parole Board decisions, where the sentences are less than life sentences, where it is making other judgments about moving people from closed to open prison? I ask that because anecdotally one hears—and my noble and learned friend may be able to comment on this—that there are now spare places in open prisons that cannot be filled, while the closed prison estate comes under ever more pressure.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Secretary of State, when introducing these new rules in January 2022, prioritised the precautionary principle and the protection of the public. Despite enormous pressure on the closed estate, he took the view—in my view rightly—that public protection was more important than the short-term expedient of transferring prisoners who are not suitable for open conditions to open conditions simply to reduce pressures on the closed estate.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the Government’s policy is being driven by dogma again? They are not looking at the evidence. Reoffending rates are still far too high, jails are full and yet Ministers are claiming that they are going to have longer and tougher sentences. Do the Government not need to revisit this and come up with a coherent plan to deal with the matter?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, as I have said on previous occasions, reoffending rates are slowly coming down, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the previous Secretary of State for his work on improved education in prison, employment opportunities, accommodation on release and other reforms which I am sure will bear good fruit in due time.
Trains: Wifi Provision for Passengers
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to advise franchise train operators to discontinue the provision of Wi-Fi for passengers on their trains.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the way we currently operate our railways is not financially sustainable. It is unfair to continue to ask taxpayers to foot the bill, which is why reforms are essential. Therefore, it is only right that we work with operators to review whether the current service delivers the best possible value for money. However, no decisions have been taken.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. She will be aware that, I think, most train operators already have wifi in all their trains for management and revenue purposes. How much money would be saved by the Treasury if they removed access to wifi from the passengers?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will revert to where I started on this. No decisions have been taken. As part of the business planning process, we have asked the train operating companies to look again at the services provided and to come up with a business case which sets out the benefits to passengers and the costs of providing that service. However, usage of wifi on trains is actually quite low. It is available from all train operating companies but is not available on all trains.
Lord Swire (Con)
One of the reasons that wifi use on trains is perhaps a little low, as my noble friend says, is because it is so hit and miss. I have been involved in an energetic correspondence with Mr Mark Hopwood, the managing director of GWR. I say energetic. It is energetic on my part, but less energetic perhaps on his; an acknowledgement would be a start and an answer even better. The truth is that we have a terrible problem in this country with productivity, and train time is dead time. You can get wifi on a plane and on a boat; surely you should be able to get reliable wifi on trains. If the problem is with Network Rail, then we really need to look at the relationship we have with the train operators, Network Rail and the whole infrastructure.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The wifi on trains usually runs off the same 4G and 5G system that my noble friend will have on his smartphone, so sometimes there can be reliability issues. It also depends on how many people are using the wifi on the train. It is there for email and other low data usage requirements. It is not really there for streaming, but I accept that sometimes the bandwidth can be a little challenging.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, UK rail passengers already suffer the most expensive rail fares in Europe. Surely they should expect to receive the basics—a seat, working toilets and catering—but too often this is not the case, even on long journeys. Now the Government are planning to advise train operators to remove wifi so passengers will not be able to use their journey time to work. Are the Government stuck in the 19th century? When will His Majesty’s Government recognise that to tackle the climate emergency we need better public transport, not worse?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course, the Government regularly survey passengers to find out what they really appreciate about the railways such as reliability, good services, punctuality and clean services. Actually, wifi is very low down on the list of priorities.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I can say only what the evidence is from asking passengers. We have asked the train operating companies to look at the provision of wifi, to establish a business case which sets out the benefits to passengers—how much they need it, those who perhaps are unable to use a smartphone on 4G or 5G for example—and then to revert.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend take this as a response to her survey? Those of us who purchase our tickets electronically require wifi to both board and travel on the train. How am I going to be permitted legally to travel if there is no wifi to demonstrate that I have purchased a ticket?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I would hope that my noble friend would have got the ticket in the wallet on her phone because she would have needed it to go through the station anyway. Free wifi will remain available at stations and as I say, no decisions have been taken. We have asked the train operating companies to prepare business cases.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, if the wifi is taken off our unreliable Avanti trains, how will I be able to let the Whips’ Office know that I will be missing a three-line Whip? Is this not another example of the pettifogging interference in the railway industry by civil servants, many of whom know nothing about it but love playing trains in their spare time? Is this not yet another example of those in her department who know the price of everything and the value of nothing?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I for one would be very disappointed if the noble Lord were unable to vote. I will take up the issue of where the Government are at the moment. Prior to the pandemic there was no need for any subsidy in operating the railways. There were zero subsidies, so revenues matched the costs. Noble Lords will all know that, since the pandemic, revenues have fallen and some revenues have shifted to the weekend and to more leisure travel. Last year the taxpayer had to subsidise the trains to the tune of £2.85 billion. That is unsustainable. To be a responsible Government, we have to look at all elements of our train services to ensure that they match demand and that the services we are providing and the facilities on them meet the needs of passengers.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister frequently tells us that the taxpayer cannot be expected to subsidise the railways because relatively few people use them. Do the Government acknowledge that we all benefit—every single one of us—from the use of the railways because each train that travels carries many hundreds of passengers who would otherwise be clogging up our already congested roads?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not think I can necessarily disagree with the noble Baroness, but that is a very absolutist approach and there is some balance to be had here. She says that the Government are not willing to subsidise the railways; we already do. As I have said, £2.85 billion is going in for the services. As I mentioned earlier this week, £44.1 billion is going into control period 7—the highest ever—and that covers all the renewals, the maintenance and the Network Rail operations. That element of it is very significant. That is nearly £9 billion a year that the Government spend, and in addition a further £2.8 billion is spent on subsidising services.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says that no final decision has been taken, but is she trying to persuade the House that the Government no longer think, in the 21st century in which we live, that wifi should count as an essential service for those of us who use the railways?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The proof is in the pudding—between 10% and 20% of people on trains use the wifi. Most people nowadays use 4G and 5G networks.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
The noble Baroness links the unavailability of wifi to the unavailability of 4G and 5G in the areas in which the trains are travelling. Does she directly link the failure of the trains to provide wifi to the failure of Project Gigabit?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
If I knew what Project Gigabit was, I would be able to answer the noble Earl’s question. I will find out and write to him. If there are not-spots for 4G and 5G—or perhaps we should call them no-spots—we really should look at that and ensure that train travellers can use those networks with reliability.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister has a number of times referred to people using their own 4G or 5G contracts instead, but people who have to really watch their costs in the cost of living crisis are very likely to have capped contracts where the amount of 4G or 5G they use is limited. Given the already eye-watering cost of rail fares and the fact that if you get wifi you are not using that scarce resource you have in your 4G or 5G contract, is this not actually pricing even more people off the railways and making the service available only to the rich?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I have said many times, business cases will be drawn up by the train operating companies, and those considerations will be top of mind.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Can the noble Baroness let the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the House know just what saving would be made if wifi were withdrawn, and what alternatives might be available to keep it running?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course, I cannot say that at the moment because there is no plan to completely withdraw all wifi from across the network. That is the whole point. However, once the business cases have been done and there is an agreement as to which wifi might continue and which might not—one might assume that it would be a prerequisite on longer journeys, but I am not going to prejudge the outcome of the business cases—at that stage we will have a better idea of the future economics.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I bring good news. I am delighted to announce the current plan for recess dates for the rest of the year. To save noble Lords from rushing to write them down, or trying to remember them, the full list of dates is now available in the Royal Gallery, in the usual place.
As previously announced, the current plan is for Summer Recess to commence at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 26 July. We will return on Monday 4 September. We will then rise on Thursday 21 September for Conference Recess and return on Monday 16 October. We will rise for Christmas Recess on Tuesday 19 December and return on Monday 8 January. The usual caveats apply: these dates are subject to the progress of business. Any changes and further recess dates will be announced in the usual way.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 March be approved.
Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 22 May.
Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 March be approved.
Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 16 May.
Online Safety Bill
Thursday 25th May 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 87(Rev)-IX(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Ninth Marshalled List) - (24 May 2023)
“(c) machine-generated content is to be regarded as user-generated content of a service if—(i) the creation or use of the machine-generated content involves interacting with user-generated content,(ii) it takes the form or identity of a user,(iii) it provides content that constitutes illegal, primary priority content or priority content, or would constitute it if created in another format, or(iv) a user has in any way facilitated any element of the generation by way of a command, prompt, or any other instruction, however minimal.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add machine-generated content to regulated content in the bill and gives meaning to how it could be regarded as ‘user-generated content’ of the service, and allows virtual and augmented reality material to be treated on an equal basis as on other formats.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to introduce this group. On Tuesday in Committee, I said that having reached day 8 of the Committee we had all found our roles; now, I find myself in a different role. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is taking an extremely well-earned holiday and was never able to be in the House today. She has asked me to introduce this group and specifically to speak to Amendment 125 in her name.
I strongly support all the amendments in the group, particularly those that would result in a review, but will limit my words to Amendment 125. I also thank the other co- signatories, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is in her place, and my noble friend Lord Sarfraz, who made such a compelling speech at Second Reading on the need for the Bill to consider emerging technologies but who is also, sadly, abroad, on government business.
I start with something said by Lord Puttnam, and I paraphrase: that we were forbidden from incorporating the word “digital” throughout the whole process of scrutiny of the communications Act in 2002. As a number of us observed at the time, he said, it was a terrible mistake not to address or anticipate these issues when it was obvious that we would have to return to it all at some later date. The Online Safety Bill is just such a moment: “Don’t close your eyes and hope”, he said, “but look to the future and make sure that it is represented in the Bill”.
With that in mind, this amendment is very modest. I will be listening carefully, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will from a distance, to my noble friend the Minister because if each aspect of this amendment is already covered in the Bill, as I suspect he will want to say, then I would be grateful if he could categorically explain how that is the case at the Dispatch Box, in sufficient detail that a future court of law can clearly understand it. If he cannot state that then I will be asking the House, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would, to support the amendment’s inclusion in the Bill.
There are two important supporters of this amendment. If the Committee will forgive me, I want to talk briefly about each of them because of the depth of understanding of the issues they have. The first is an enforcement officer who I shall not name, but I and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, want to thank him and his team for the extraordinary work that they do, searching out child sexual abuse in the metaverse. The second, who I will come to in a little bit, is Dr Geoff Hinton, the inventor of the neural network and most often referred to as “the godfather of AI”, whom the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, met last week. Both are firm supporters of this amendment.
The amendment is part of a grouping labelled future-proofing but, sadly, this is not in the future. It is with us now. The rise of child sexual abuse in the metaverse is growing phenomenally. Two months ago, at the behest of the Institution of Engineering and Technology, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, hosted a small event at which members of a specialist police unit explained to colleagues from both Houses that what they were finding online was amongst the worst imaginable, but was not adequately caught by existing laws. I should just warn those listening to or reading this—I am looking up at the Public Gallery, where I see a number of young people listening to us—that I am about to briefly recount some really horrific stuff from what we saw and heard.
The quality of AI imagery is now at the point where a realistic AI image of a child can be produced. Users are able to produce or order indecent AI images, based on a child known to them. Simply by uploading a picture of a next door neighbour’s child or a family member, or taking a child’s image from social media and putting that face on existing abuse images, they can create a body for that picture or, increasingly, make it 3D and take it into an abuse room. The type of imagery produced can vary from suggestive or naked to penetrative sex; for the most part, I do not think I should be repeating in this Chamber the scenarios that play out.
VR child avatars can be provided with a variety of bespoke abuse scenarios, which the user can then interact with. Tailor-made VR experiences are being advertised for production on demand. They can be made to meet specific fetishes or to feature a specific profile of a child. The production of these VR abuse images is a commercial venture. Among the many chilling facts we learned was that the Oculus Meta Quest 2, which is the best-selling VR headset in the UK, links up to an app that is downloaded on to the user’s mobile phone. Within that app, the user can search for other users to follow and engage with—either through the VR headset or via instant messaging in their mobile app. A brief search through the publicly viewable user profiles on this app shows a huge number of profiles with usernames indicative of a sexual interest in children.
Six weeks after the event, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, spoke to the same officer. He said that already the technology was a generation on—in just six weeks. The officer made a terrible and terrifying prediction: he said that in a matter of months this violent imagery, based on and indistinguishable from an actual known child, will evolve to include moving 3D imagery and that at that point, the worlds of VR and AI will meet and herald a whole new phase in offending. I will quote this enforcement officer. He said:
“I hate to think where we will be in six months from now”.
While this group is labelled as future-proofing the Bill, I remind noble Lords that in six months’ time, the provisions of the Bill will not have been implemented. So this is not about the future; it is actually about the now.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, for the way she introduced this group of amendments. I have added my name to Amendment 125 and have tabled probing Amendments 241 and 301 in an attempt to future-proof the Bill. As the noble Baroness has said, this is not the future but today, tomorrow and forever, going forwards.
I hope that there are no children in the Public Gallery, but from my position I cannot see.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
There are some children in the Public Gallery.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Then I shall slightly modify some of the things I was going to say.
When this Bill was conceived, the online world was very different from how it is today. It is hard to imagine how it will look in the future. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the Dawes Centre for Future Crime at UCL, for information that they have given to me. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Kidron, and the enforcement officers who have shared with us images which are so horrific that I wish that I had never seen them—but you cannot unsee what you have seen. I admire how they have kept going and maintained a moral compass in their work.
The metaverse is already disrupting the online world as we know it. By 2024, it is estimated that there will be 1.7 billion mobile augmented-reality user devices worldwide. More than one-fifth of five to 10 year-olds already have a virtual reality headset of their own, or have asked for similar technology as a gift. The AI models are also developing quickly. My Amendment 241 would require Ofcom to be alert to the ways in which emerging technologies allow for activities that are illegal in the real world to be carried out online, to identify the places where the law is not keeping up to date with technological developments.
The metaverse seems to have 10 attributes. It is multiuser and multipurpose, content is user-generated, it is immersive, and spatial interactions occur in virtual reality or have physical environments enhanced by augmented reality. Its digital aspects do not expire when the experience ends, and it is multiplatform and interoperable, as users move between platforms. Avatars are involved, and in the metaverse there is ownership of the avatars or other assets such as virtual property, cryptocurrency et cetera. These attributes allow it to be used to master training scenarios of complex situations, such as in surgical training for keyhole surgery, where it can improve accuracy rapidly. On the horizon are brain/computer interfaces, which may be very helpful in rehabilitative adaptation after severe neurological damage.
These developments have great potential. However, dangers arise when virtual and augmented reality devices are linked to such things as wearable haptic suits, which allow the user to feel interactions through physical sensation, and teledildonics, which are electronic devices that simulate sexual interaction.
With the development of deep-fake imagery, it is now possible for an individual to order a VR experience of abusing the image of a child whom they know. The computer-generated images are so realistic that they are almost impossible to distinguish from those that would be cartoon-generated. An avatar can sexually assault the avatar of a minor, and such an avatar of the minor can be personalised. Worryingly, there have been growing reports of these assaults and rapes happening. Since the intention of VR is to trick the human nervous system into experiencing perceptual and bodily reactions, while such a virtual assault may not involve physical touching, the psychological, neurological and emotional experience can be similar to a physical assault.
This fuels sex addiction and violence addiction, and is altering the offender pathway: once the offender has engaged with VR abuse material, there is no desire to go back to 2D material. Offenders report that they want more: in the case of VR, that would be moving to live abuse, as has been said. The time from the development of abnormal sexual desires to real offending is shortened as the offender seeks ever-increasing and diverse stimulation to achieve the same reward. Through Amendment 125, such content would be regarded as user-generated.
Under Amendment 241, Ofcom could suggest ways in which Parliament may want to update the current law on child pornography to catch such deep-fake imagery, as these problematic behaviours are illegal in the real world but do not appear to be illegal online or in the virtual world.
Difficulties also arise over aspects of terrorism. It is currently a criminal offence to attend a terrorist training ground. Can the Minister confirm that Amendment 136C, which we have debated and which will be moved in a later group, would make attending a virtual training ground illegal? How will Ofcom be placed to identify and close any loopholes?
The Dawes Centre for Future Crime has identified 31 unique crime threats or offences which are risks in the metaverse, particularly relating to child sexual abuse material, child grooming, investment scams, hate crime, harassment and radicalisation.
I hope the Minister can confirm that the Bill already applies to the metaverse, with its definition of user-to-user services and technology-neutral terminology, and that its broad definition of “encountering” includes experiencing content such as haptic suits or virtual or augmented reality through the technology-neutral expression “or other automated tool”. Can the Minister also confirm that the changes made in the other place in Clause 85 require providers of metaverse services to consider the level of risk of the service being used for the commission or facilitation of a priority offence?
The welcome addition to the Bill of a risk assessment duty, however, should be broadened to include offences which are not only priority offences. I ask the Minister: will the list of offences in Schedules 5 to 7 to the Bill be amended to include the option of adding to this list to cover other harmful offences such as sexual offences against adults, impersonation scams, and cyber physical attacks such as cyber burglary, which can lead to planned burglary, attacks on key infrastructure and assault?
The ability to expand the risk assessment criteria could future-proof the Bill against such offences by keeping the list open, rather than closed as it is at the moment, to other serious offences committed in user-to-user or combined service providers. Such duties should apply across all services, not only those in category 1, because the smaller platforms, which are not covered by empowerment duties, may present a particularly high risk of illegal content and harmful behaviours.
Can the Minister therefore please tell us how content that is illegal in the real world will be reported, and how complaints can be made when it is encountered, if it is not a listed priority offence in the Bill? Will the Government expand the scope to cover not only illegal content, as defined in Clauses 207 and 53, but complex activities and interactions that are possible in the metaverse? How will the list of priority offences be expanded? Will the Government amend the Bill to enable Ofcom to take a risk-based approach to identifying who becomes classified as a category 1 provider?
I could go on to list many other ways in which our current laws will struggle to remain relevant against the emerging technologies. The list’s length shows the need for Ofcom to be able to act and report on such areas—and that Parliament must be alive to the need to stay up to date.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for tempering her remarks. On tempering speeches and things like that, I can inform noble Lords that the current school group have been escorted from the Chamber, and no further school groups will enter for the duration of the debate on this group of amendments.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 241, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, as she mentioned. I also spoke in the Private Member’s Bill that the noble Baroness previously brought before your Lordships’ House, in a similar vein, regarding future-proofing.
The particular issue in Amendment 241 that I wish to address is
“the extent to which new communications and internet technologies allow for behaviours which would be in breach of the law if the equivalent behaviours were committed in the physical world”.
The use of “behaviours” brings into sharp focus the applicability of the Online Safety Bill in the metaverse. Since that Private Member’s Bill, I have learned much about future-proofing from the expert work of the Dawes Centre for Future Crime at UCL. I reached out to the centre as it seemed to me that some conduct and crimes in the physical world would not be criminal if committed in the metaverse.
I will share the example, which seems quite banal, that led me to contact them. The office meeting now takes place in the metaverse. All my colleagues are represented by avatars. My firm has equipped me with the most sophisticated haptic suit. During the meeting, the avatar of one of my colleagues slaps the bum of my avatar. The haptic suit means that I have a physical response to that, to add to the fright and shock. Even without such a suit, I would be shocked and frightened. Physically, I am, of course, working in my own home.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. I ask that we pause the debate to ask this school group to exit the Chamber. We do not think that the subject matter and content will be suitable for that audience. I am very sorry. The House is pausing.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
In this moment while we pause, I congratulate the noble Lord, the Government Whip, for being so vigilant: some of us in the Chamber cannot see the whole Gallery. It is appreciated.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I, too, thank my noble friend the Government Whip. I apologise too if I have spoken out of discourtesy in the Committee: I was not sure whose name was on which amendment, so I will continue.
Physically, I am, of course, working in my home. If that behaviour had happened in the office, it would be an offence, an assault: “intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another person”. It will not be an offence in the metaverse and it is probably not harassment because it is not a course of conduct.
Although the basic definition of user-to-user content covers the metaverse, as does encountering, as has been mentioned in relation to content under Clause 207, which is broad enough to cover the haptic suits, the restriction to illegal content could be problematic, as the metaverse is a complex of live interactions that mimics real life and such behaviours, including criminal ones. Also, the avatar of an adult could sexually assault the avatar of a child in the metaverse, and with haptic technologies this would not be just a virtual experience. Potentially even more fundamentally than Amendment 125, the Bill is premised on the internet being a solely virtual environment when it comes to content that can harm. But what I am seeking to outline is that conduct can also harm.
I recognise that we cannot catch everything in this Bill at this moment. This research is literally hot off the press; it is only a few weeks old. At the very least, it highlights the need for future-proofing. I am aware that some of the issues I have highlighted about the fundamental difference between conduct and content refer to clauses noble Lords may already have debated. However, I believe that these points are significant. It is just happenstance that the research came out and is hot off the press. I would be grateful if the Minister would meet the Dawes Centre urgently to consider whether there are further changes the Government need to make to the Bill to ensure that it covers the harms I have outlined.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 195, 239 and 263. I also strongly support Amendment 125 in the name of my noble friend Lady Kidron.
During this Committee there have been many claims that a group of amendments is the most significant, but I believe that this group is the most significant. This debate comes after the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Science and Technology met the heads of leading AI research companies in Downing Street. The joint statement said:
“They discussed safety measures … to manage risks”
and called for
“international collaboration on AI safety and regulation”.
Surely this Bill is the obvious place to start responding to those concerns. If we do not future-proof this Bill against the changes in digital technology, which are ever increasing at an ever-faster rate, it will be obsolete even before it is implemented.
My greatest concern is the arrival of AI. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, has reminded us of the warnings from the godfather of AI, Geoffrey Hinton. If he is not listened to, who on earth should we be listening to? I wholeheartedly support Amendment 125. Machine-generated content is present in so much of what we see on the internet, and its presence is increasing daily. It is the future, and it must be within scope of this Bill. I am appalled by the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, has brought before us.
In the Communications and Digital Committee inquiry on regulating the internet, we decided that horizon scanning was so important that we called for a digital authority to be created which would look for harms developing in the digital world, assess how serious a threat they posed to users and develop a regulated response. The Government did not take up these suggestions. Instead, Ofcom has been given the onerous task of enforcing the triple shield which under this Bill will protect users to different degrees into the future.
Amendment 195 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford will ensure that Ofcom has knowledge of how well the triple shield is working, which must be essential. Surveys of thousands of users undertaken by companies such as Kantar give an invaluable snapshot of what is concerning users now. These must be fed into research by Ofcom to ensure that future developments across the digital space are monitored, updated and brought to the attention of the Secretary of State and Parliament on a regular basis.
Amendment 195 will reveal trends in harms which might not be picked up by Ofcom under the present regime. It will look at the risk arising for individuals from the operation of Part 3 services. Clause 12 on user empowerment duties has a list of content and characteristics from which users can protect themselves. However, the characteristics for which or content with which users can be abused will change over time and these changes need to be researched, anticipated and implemented.
This Bill has proved in its long years of gestation that it takes time to change legislation, while changes on the internet take just minutes or are already here. The regime set up by these future-proofing amendments will at least go some way to protecting users from these fast-evolving harms. I stress to your Lordships’ Committee that this is very much precautionary work. It should be used to inform the Secretary of State of harms which are coming down the line. I do not think it will give power automatically to expand the scope of harms covered by the regime.
Amendment 239 inserts a new clause for an Ofcom future management of risks review. This will help feed into the Secretary of State review regime set out in Clause 159. Clause 159(3)(a) currently looks at ensuring that regulated services are operating using systems and process which, so far as relevant, are minimising the risk of harms to individuals. The wording appears to mean that the Secretary of State will be viewing all harms to individuals. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to the Committee the scope of the harms set out in Clause 159(3)(a)(i). Are they meant to cover only the harms of illegality and harms to children, or are they part of a wider examination of the harms regime to see whether it needs to be contracted or expanded? I would welcome an explanation of the scope of the Secretary of State’s review.
The real aim of Amendment 263 is to ensure that the Secretary of State looks at research work carried out by Ofcom. I am not sure how politicians will come to any conclusions in the Clause 159 review unless they are required to look at all the research published by Ofcom on future risk. I would like the Minister to explain what research the Secretary of State would rely on for this review unless this amendment is accepted. I hope Amendment 263 will also encourage the Secretary of State to look at possible harms not only from content, but also from the means of delivering this content.
This aim was the whole point of Amendment 261, which has already been debated. However, it needs to be borne in mind when considering that harms come not just from content, but also from the machine technology which delivers it. Every day we read about new developments and threats posed by a fast-evolving internet. Today it is concerns about ChatGPT and the race for the most sophisticated artificial intelligence. The amendments in this group will provide much-needed reinforcement to ensure that the Online Safety Bill remains a beacon for continuing safety online.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendments 195, 239 and 263, tabled in the names of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Oxford, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who I thank for his comments.
My right reverend friend the Bishop of Oxford regrets that he is unable to attend today’s debate. I know he would have liked to be here. My right reverend friend tells me that the Government’s Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, of which he was a founding member, devoted considerable resource to horizon scanning in its early years, looking for the ways in which AI and tech would develop across the world. The centre’s analysis reflected a single common thread: new technologies are developing faster than we can track them and they bring with them the risk of significant harms.
This Bill has also changed over time. It now sets out two main duties: the illegal content duty and the children duty. These duties have been examined and debated for years, including by the joint scrutiny committee. They are refined and comprehensive. Risk assessments are required to be “suitable and sufficient”, which is traditional language from 20 years of risk-based regulation. It ensures that the duties are fit for purpose and proportionate. The duties must be kept up to date and in line with any service changes. Recent government amendments now helpfully require companies to report to Ofcom and publish summaries of their findings.
However, in respect of harms to adults, in November last year the Government suddenly took a different tack. They introduced two new groups of duties as part of a novel triple shield framework, supplementing the duty to remove illegal harms with a duty to comply with their own terms of service and a duty to provide user empowerment tools. These new duties are quite different in style to the illegal content and children duties. They have not benefited from the prior years of consultation.
As this Committee’s debates have frequently noted, there is no clear requirement on companies to assess in the round how effective their implementation of these new duties is or to keep track of their developments. The Government have changed this Bill’s system for protecting adults online late in the day, but the need for risk assessments, in whatever system the Bill is designed around, has been repeated again and again across Committee days. Even at the close of day eight on Tuesday, the noble Lords, Lord Allan of Hallam and Lord Clement-Jones, referred explicitly to the role of risk assessment in validating the Bill’s systems of press reforms. Surely this persistence across days and groups of debate reflects the systemically pivotal role of risk assessments in what is, after all, meant to be a systems and processes rather than a content-orientated Bill.
But it seems that many people on many sides of this Committee believe that an important gap in risk assessment for harms to adults has been introduced by these late changes to the Bill. My colleague the right reverend Prelate is keen that I thank Carnegie UK for its work across the Bill, including these amendments. It notes:
“Harms to adults which might trickle down to become harms to children are not assessed in the current Bill”.
The forward-looking parts of its regime need to be strengthened to ensure that Parliament and the Secretary of State review new ways in which harms manifesting as technology race along, and to ensure that they then have the right advice for deciding what to do about them. To improve that advice, Ofcom needs to risk assess the future and then to report its findings.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, like others, I thank the Whips for intervening to protect children from hearing details that are not appropriate for the young. I have to say that I was quite relieved because I was rather squirming myself. Over the last two days of Committee, I have been exposed to more violent pornographic imagery than any adult, never mind a child, should be exposed to. I think we can recognise that this is certainly a challenging time for us.
I do not want any of the comments I will now make to be seen as minimising understanding of augmented reality, AI, the metaverse and so on, as detailed so vividly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Finlay, in relation to child safety. However, I have some concerns about this group, in terms of proportionality and unintended outcomes.
Amendment 239, in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, sums up some of my concerns about a focus on future-proofing. This amendment would require Ofcom to produce reports about future risks, which sounds like a common-sense demand. But my question is about us overly focusing on risk and never on opportunities. There is a danger that the Bill will end up recommending that we see these new technologies only in a negative way, and that we in fact give more powers to expand the scope for harmful content, in a way that stifles speech.
Beyond the Bill, I am more generally worried about what seems to be becoming a moral panic about AI. The precautionary principle is being adopted, which could mean stifling innovation at source and preventing the development of great technologies that could be of huge benefit to humanity. The over-focus on the dangers of AI and augmented reality could mean that we ignore the potential large benefits. For example, if we have AI, everyone could have an immediately responsive GP in their pocket—goodness knows that, for those trying to get an appointment, that could be of great use and benefit. It could mean that students have an expert tutor in every subject, just one message away. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke about the fantastic medical breakthroughs that augmented reality can bring to handling neurological damage. Last night, I cheered when I saw how someone who has never been able to walk now can, through those kinds of technologies. I thought, “Isn’t this a brilliant thing?” So all I am suggesting is that we have to be careful that we do not see these new technologies only as tools for the most perverted form of activity among a small minority of individuals.
I note, with some irony, that fewer qualms were expressed by noble Lords about the use of AI when it was proposed to scan and detect speech or images in encrypted messages. As I argued at the time, this would be a threat to WhatsApp, Signal and so on. Clauses 110 and 124 have us using AI as a blunt proactive technology of surveillance, despite the high risks of inaccuracy, error and false flags. But there was great enthusiasm for AI then, when it was having an impact on individuals’ freedom of expression—yet, here, all we hear are the negatives. So we need to be balanced.
I am also concerned about Amendment 125, which illustrates the problem of seeing innovation only as a threat to safety and a potential problem. For example, if the Bill considers AI-generated content to be user-generated content, only large technology companies will have the resources—lawyers and engineers—necessary to proceed while avoiding crippling liability.
In practice, UK users risk being blocked out from new technologies if we are not careful about how we regulate here. For example, users in the European Union currently cannot access Google Bard AI assistant because of GDPR regulations. That would be a great loss because Google Bard AI is potentially a great gain. Despite the challenges of the likes of ChatGPT and Bard AI that we keep reading about, with people panicking that this will lead to wide-scale cheating in education and so on, this has huge potential as a beneficial technology, as I said.
I have mentioned that one of the unintended consequences—it would be unintended—of the whole Bill could be that the UK becomes a hostile environment for digital investment and innovation. So start-ups that have been invested in—like DeepMind, a Google-owned and UK-based AI company—could be forced to leave the UK, doing huge damage to the UK’s digital sector. How can the UK be a science and technology superpower if we end up endorsing anti-innovation, anti-progress and anti-business measures by being overly risk averse?
I have the same concerns about Amendment 286, which requires periodic reviews of new technology content environments such as the metaverse and other virtual augmented reality settings. I worry that it will not be attractive for technology companies to confidently invest in new technologies if there is this constant threat of new regulations and new problems on the horizon.
I have a query that mainly relates to Amendment 125 but that is also more general. If virtual augmented reality actually involves user-to-user interaction, like in the metaverse, is it not already covered in the Bill? Why do we need to add it in? The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said that it has got to the point where we are not able to distinguish fake from real, and augmented reality from reality. But she concludes that that means that we should treat fake as real, which seems to me to rather muddy the waters and make it a fait accompli. I personally—
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I will make a clarification; the noble Baroness is misinterpreting what I said. I was actually quoting the godfather of AI and his concerns that we are fast approaching a space where it will be impossible—I did not say that it currently is—to distinguish between a real child being abused and a machine learning-generated image of a child being abused. So, first, I was quoting the words of the godfather of AI, rather than my own, and, secondly, he was looking forward—only months, not decades—to a very real and perceived threat.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I personally think that it is pessimistic view of the future to suggest that humanity cannot rise to the task of being able to distinguish between deep fakes and real images. Organising all our lives, laws and liberties around the deviant predilections of a minority of sexual offenders on the basis that none of us will be able to tell the difference in the future, when it comes to that kind of activity, is rather dangerous for freedom and innovation.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I could disagree with much of what the noble Baroness just said, but I do not need to go there.
What particularly resonates with me today is that, since I first entered your Lordships’ House at the tender age of 28 in 1981, this is the first time I can ever remember us having to rein back what we are discussing because of the presence of young people in the Public Gallery. I reflect on that, because it brings home the gravity of what we are talking about and its prevalence; we cannot run away or hide from it.
I will ask the Minister about the International Regulatory Cooperation for a Global Britain: Government Response to the OECD Review of International Regulatory Cooperation of the UK, published 2 September 2020. He will not thank me for that, because I am sure that he is already familiar and word-perfect with this particular document, which was pulled together by his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I raise this because, to think that we can in any way, shape or form, with this piece of legislation, stem the tide of what is happening in the online world—which is happening internationally on a global basis and at a global level—by trying to create regulatory and legal borders around our benighted island, is just for the fairies. It is not going to happen.
Can the Minister tell us about the degree to which, at an international level, we are proactively talking to, and learning from, other regulators in different jurisdictions, which are battling exactly the same things that we are? To concentrate the Minister’s mind, I will point out what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, committed the Government to doing nearly three years ago. First, in relation to international regulatory co-operation, the Government committed to
“developing a whole-of-government IRC strategy, which sets out the policies, tools and respective roles of different departments and regulators in facilitating this; … developing specific tools and guidance to policy makers and regulators on how to conduct IRC; and … establishing networks to convene international policy professionals from across government and regulators to share experience and best practice on IRC”.
I am sure that, between now and when he responds, he will be given a detailed answer by the Bill team, so that he can tell us exactly where the Government, his department and Ofcom are in carrying out the commitments of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, although I arrived a little late, I will say, very briefly, that I support the amendments wholeheartedly. I support them because I see this as a child protection issue. People viewing AI, I believe, will lead to them going out to find real children to sexually abuse. I will not take up any more time, but I wholeheartedly agree with everything that has been said, apart from what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. I hope that the Minister will look very seriously at the amendments and take them into consideration.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, I will speak in support of Amendments 195, 239, 263 and 286, to which he added his name. He wants me to thank the Carnegie Trust and the Institution of Engineering and Technology, which have been very helpful in flagging relevant issues for the debate.
Some of the issues in this group of amendments will range much more widely than simply the content we have before us in the Online Safety Bill. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford is right to flag the question of a risk assessment. People are flagging to us known risks. Once we have a known risk, it is incumbent on us to challenge the Minister to see whether the Government are thinking about those risks, regardless of whether the answer is something in the Online Safety Bill or that there needs to be amendments to wider criminal law and other pieces of legislation to deal with it.
Some of these issues have been dealt with for a long time. If you go back and look at the Guardian for 9 May 2007, you will see the headline,
“Second Life in virtual child sex scandal”.
That case was reported in Germany about child role-playing in Second Life, which is very similar to the kind of scenarios described by various noble Lords in this debate. If Second Life was the dog that barked but did not bite, we are in quite a different scenario today, not least because of the dramatic expansion in broadband technology, for which we can thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, in her previous role. Pretty much everybody in this country now has incredible access, at huge scale, to high-speed broadband, which allows those kinds of real life, metaverse-type environments to be available to far more people than was possible with Second Life, which tended to be confined to a smaller group.
The amendments raise three significant groups of questions: first, on scope, and whether the scope of the Online Safety Bill will stretch to what we need; secondly, on behaviour, including the kinds of new behaviours, which we have heard described, that could arise as these technologies develop; and, finally, on agency, which speaks to some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on AIs, including the novel questions about who is responsible when something happens through the medium of artificial intelligence.
On scope, the key question is whether the definition of “user-to-user”, which is at the heart of the Bill, covers everything that we would like to see covered by the Bill. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I look forward to the Minister’s response; I am sure that he has very strongly prepared arguments on that. We should take a moment to give credit to the Bill’s drafters for coming up with these definitions for user-to-user behaviours, rather than using phrases such as, “We are regulating social media or specific technology”. It is worth giving credit, because a lot of thought has gone into this, over many years, with organisations such as the Carnegie Trust. Our starting point is a better starting point than many other legislative frameworks which list a set of types of services; we at least have something about user-to-user behaviours that we can work with. Having said that, it is important that we stress-test that definition. That is what we are doing today: we are stress-testing, with the Minister, whether the definition of “user-to-user” will still apply in some of the novel environments.
It certainly seems likely—and I am sure that the Minister will say this—that a lot of metaverse activity would be in scope. But we need detailed responses from the Minister to explain why the kinds of scenario that have been described—if he believes that this is the case; I expect him to say so—would mean that Ofcom would be able to demand things of a metaverse provider under the framework of the user-to-user requirements. Those are things we all want to see, including the risk assessments, the requirement to keep people away from illegal content, and any other measures that Ofcom deems necessary to mitigate the risks on those platforms.
It will certainly be useful for the Minister to clarify one particular area. Again, we are fortunate in the UK that pseudo-images of child sexual abuse are illegal and have been illegal for a long time. That is not the case in every country around the world, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, is quite right to say that this an area where we need international co-operation. Having dealt with it on the platforms, some countries have actively chosen not to criminalise pseudo-images; others just have not considered it.
In the UK, we were ahead of the game in saying, “If it looks like a photo of child abuse, we don’t care whether you created it on Photoshop, or whatever—it is illegal”. I hope that the Minister can confirm that avatars in metaverse-type environments would fall under that definition. My understanding is that the legislation refers to photographs and videos. I would interpret an avatar or activity in a metaverse as a photo or video, and I hope that is what the Government’s legal officers are doing.
Again, it is important in the context of this debate and the exchange that we have just had between the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Fox, that people out there understand that they do not get away with it. If you are in the UK and you create a child sexual abuse image, you can be taken to court and go to prison. People should not think that, if they do it in the metaverse, it is okay—it is not okay, and it is really important that that message gets out there.
This brings us to the second area of behaviours. Again, some of the behaviours that we see online will be extensions of existing harms, but some will be novel, based on technical capabilities. Some of them we should just call by their common or garden term, which is sexual harassment. I was struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, on this. If people go online and start approaching other people in sexual terms, that is sexual harassment. It does not matter whether it is happening in a physical office, on public transport, on traditional social media or in the metaverse—sexual harassment is wrong and, particularly when directed at minors, a really serious offence. Again, I hope that all the platforms recognise that and take steps to prevent sexual harassment on their platforms.
That is quite a lot of the activity that people are concerned about, but others are much more complex and may require updates to legislation. Those are particularly activities such as role-playing online, where people play roles and carry out activities that would be illegal if done in the real world. That is particularly difficult when it is done between consenting adults, when they choose to carry out a role-playing activity that replicates an illegal activity were it to take place in the real world. That is hard—and those with long memories may remember a group of cases around Operation Spanner in the 1990s, whereby a group of men was prosecuted for consensual sadomasochistic behaviour. The case went backwards and forwards, but it talked to something that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, may be sympathetic to—the point at which the state should intervene on sexual activities that many people find abhorrent but which take place between consenting adults.
In the context of the metaverse, I see those questions coming front and centre again. There are all sorts of things that people could role-play in the metaverse, and we will need to take a decision on whether the current legislation is adequate or needs to be extended to cater for the fact that it now becomes a common activity. Also important is the nature of it. The fact that it is so realistic changes the nature of an activity; you get a gut feeling about it. The role-playing could happen today outside the metaverse, but once you move it in there, something changes. Particularly when children are involved, it becomes something that should be a priority for legislators—and it needs to be informed by what actually happens. A lot of what the amendments seek to do is to make sure that Ofcom collects the information that we need to understand how serious these problems are becoming and whether they are, again, something that is marginal or something that is becoming mainstream and leading to more harm.
The third and final question that I wanted to cover is the hardest one—the one around agency. That brings us to thinking about artificial intelligence. When we try to assign responsibility for inappropriate or illegal behaviour, we are normally looking for a controlling mind. In many cases, that will hold true online as well. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, is looking at bots—and with a classic bot, you have a controlling mind. When the bots were distributing information in the US election on behalf of Russia, that was happening on behalf of individuals in Russia who had created those bots and sent them out there. We still had a controlling mind, in that instance, and a controlling mind can be prosecuted. We have that in many instances, and we can expect platforms to control them and expect to go after the individuals who created the bots in the same way that we would go after things that they do as a first party. There is a lot of experience in the fields of spam and misinformation, where “bashing the bots” is the daily bread and butter of a lot of online platforms. They have to do it just to keep their platforms safe.
We can also foresee a scenario with artificial intelligence whereby it is less obvious that there is a controlling mind or who the controlling mind should be. I can imagine a situation whereby an artificial intelligence has created illegal content, whether that is child sexual abuse material or something else that is in the schedule of illegal content in the Bill, without the user having expected it to happen or the developer having believed or contemplated that it could happen. Let us say that the artificial intelligence goes off and creates something illegal, and that both the user and the developer can show the question that they asked of the artificial intelligence and show how they coded it, showing that neither of them intended for that thing to happen. In the definition of artificial intelligence, it has its own agency in that scenario. The artificial intelligence cannot be fined or sent to prison. There are some things that we can do: we can try to retrain it, or we can kill it. There is always a kill switch; we should never forget that with artificial intelligence. Sam Altman at OpenAI can turn off ChatGPT if it is behaving in an illegal way.
There are some really important questions around that issue. There is the liability for the specific instance of the illegality happening. Who do we hold liable? Even if everyone says that it was not their intention, is there someone that we can hold liable? What should the threshold be at which we can execute that death sentence on the AI? If an AI is being used by millions of people and on a small number of occasions it does something illegal, is that sufficient? At what point do we say that the AI is rogue and that, effectively, it needs to be taken out of operation? Those are much wider questions than we are dealing with immediately with in the Bill, but I hope that the Minister can at least point to what the Government are thinking about these kind of legal questions, as we move from a world of user-to-user engagement to user-to-user-to-machine engagement, when that machine is no longer a creature of the user.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I have had time just to double-check the offences. The problem that exists—and it would be helpful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm this—is that the criminal law is defined in terms of person. It is not automatic that sexual harassment, particularly if you do not have a haptic suit on, would actually fall within the criminal law, as far as I understand it, which is why I am asking the Minister to clarify. That was the point that I was making. Harassment per se also needs a course of conduct, so if it was not a touch of your avatar in a sexual nature, it clearly falls outside criminal law. That is the point of clarification that we might need on how the criminal law is framed at the moment.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. That is very helpful.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
That is exactly the same issue with child sexual abuse images—it is about the way in which criminal law is written. Not surprisingly, it is not up to date with evolution of technology.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I am grateful for that intervention as well. That summarises the core questions that we have for the Minister. Of the three areas that we have for him, the first is the question of scope and the extent to which he can assure us that the Bill as drafted will be robust in covering the metaverse and bots, which are the issues that have been raised today. The second is on behaviours and to the two interventions that we have just had. We have been asking whether, with the behaviours that are criminal today, that criminality will stretch to new, similar forms of behaviour taking place in new environments—let us put it that way. The behaviour, the intent and the harm are the same, but the environment is different. We want to understand the extent to which the Government are thinking about that, where that thinking is happening and how confident they are that they can deal with that.
Finally, on the question of agency, how do the Government expect to deal with the fact that we will have machines operating in a user-to-user environment when the connection between the machine and another individual user is qualitatively different from anything that we have seen before? Those are just some small questions for the Minister on this Thursday afternoon.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, the debate on this group has been a little longer, deeper and more important than I had anticipated. It requires all of us to reflect before Report on some of the implications of the things we have been talking about. It was introduced masterfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and her comments—and those from the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Berridge—were difficult to listen to at times. I also congratulate the Government Whip on the way he handled the situation so that innocent ears were not subject to some of that difficult listening. But the questions around the implications of virtual reality, augmented reality and haptic technology are really important, and I hope the Minister will agree to meet with the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the people she referenced to reflect on some of that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a grim but important debate to open the Committee’s proceedings today. As my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe and others have set out, some of the issues and materials about which we are talking are abhorrent indeed. I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Harlech for his vigilance and consideration for those who are watching our proceedings today, to allow us to talk about them in the way that we must in order to tackle them, but to ensure that we do so sensitively. I thank noble Lords for the way they have done that.
I pay tribute also to those who work in this dark corner of the internet to tackle these harms. I am pleased to reassure noble Lords that the Bill has been designed in a way that responds to emerging and new technologies that may pose a risk of harm. In our previous debates, we have touched on explicitly naming certain technologies and user groups or making aspects of the legislation more specific. However, one key reason why the Government have been resistant to such specificity is to ensure that the legislation remains flexible and future-proofed.
The Bill has been designed to be technology-neutral in order to capture new services that may arise in this rapidly evolving sector. It confers duties on any service that enables users to interact with each other, as well as search services, meaning that any new internet service that enables user interaction will be caught by it.
Amendment 125, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—whose watchful eye I certainly feel on me even as she takes a rare but well-earned break today—seeks to ensure that machine-generated content, virtual reality content and augmented reality content are regulated content under the Bill. I am happy to confirm to her and to my noble friend Lady Harding who moved the amendment on her behalf that the Bill is designed to regulate providers of user-to-user services, regardless of the specific technologies they use to deliver their service, including virtual reality and augmented reality content. This is because any service that allows its users to encounter content generated, uploaded or shared by other users is in scope unless exempt. “Content” is defined very broadly in Clause 207(1) as
“anything communicated by means of an internet service”.
This includes virtual or augmented reality. The Bill’s duties therefore cover all user-generated content present on the service, regardless of the form this content takes, including virtual reality and augmented reality content. To state it plainly: platforms that allow such content—for example, the metaverse—are firmly in scope of the Bill.
The Bill also ensures that machine-generated content on user-to-user services created by automated tools or machine bots will be regulated by the Bill where appropriate. Specifically, Clause 49(4)(b) means that machine-generated content is regulated unless the bot or automated tool producing the content is controlled by the provider of the service. This approach ensures that the Bill covers scenarios such as malicious bots on a social media platform abusing users, or when users share content produced by new tools, such as ChatGPT, while excluding functions such as customer service chatbots which are low risk. Content generated by an artificial intelligence bot and then placed by a user on a regulated service will be regulated by the Bill. Content generated by an AI bot which interacts with user-generated content, such as bots on Twitter, will be regulated by the Bill. A bot that is controlled by the service provider, such as a customer service chatbot, is out of scope; as I have said, that is low risk and regulation would therefore be disproportionate. Search services using AI-powered features will be in scope of the search duties.
The Government recognise the need to act both to unlock the opportunities and to address the potential risks of this technology. Our AI regulation White Paper sets out the principles for the responsible development of AI in the UK. These principles, such as safety and accountability, are at the heart of our approach to ensuring the responsible development and use of artificial intelligence. We are creating a horizon-scanning function and a central risk function which will enable the Government to monitor future risks.
The Bill does not distinguish between the format of content present on a service. Any service that allows its users to encounter content generated, uploaded or shared by other users is in scope unless exempt, regardless of the format of that content. This includes virtual and augmented reality material. Platforms that allow such content, such as the metaverse, are firmly in scope of the Bill and must take the required steps to protect their users from harm. I hope that gives the clarity that my noble friend and others were seeking and reassurance that the intent of Amendment 125 is satisfied.
The Bill will require companies to take proactive steps to tackle all forms of online child sexual abuse, including grooming, live streaming, child sexual abuse material and prohibited images of children. If AI-generated content amounts to a child’s sexual exploitation or abuse offence in the Bill, it will be subject to the illegal content duties. Regulated providers will need to take steps to remove this content. We will shortly bring forward, and have the opportunity to debate in Committee, a government amendment to address concerns relating to the sending of intimate images. This will cover the non-consensual sharing of manufactured images—more commonly known as deepfakes. The possession and distribution of altered images that appear to be indecent photographs of children is ready covered by the indecent images of children offences, which are very serious offences with robust punishment in law.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
Will the review also cover an understanding of what has been happening in criminal cases where, in some of the examples that have been described, people have tried to take online activity to court? We will at that point understand whether the judges believe that existing offences cover some of these novel forms of activity. I hope the review will also extend not just to what Ofcom does as a regulator but to understand what the courts are doing in terms of the definitions of criminal activity and whether they are being effective in the new online spaces.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I believe it will. Certainly, both government and Parliament will take into account judgments in the court on this Bill and in related areas of law, and will, I am sure, want to respond.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
It is not just the judgments of the courts; it is about how the criminal law as a very basic point has been framed. I invite my noble friend the Minister to please meet with the Dawes Centre, because it is about future crime. We could end up with a situation in which more and more violence, particularly against women and girls, is being committed in this space, and although it may be that the Bill has made it regulated, it may not fall within the province of the criminal law. That would be a very difficult situation for our law to end up in. Can my noble friend the Minister please meet with the Dawes Centre to talk about that point?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am happy to reassure my noble friend that the director of the Dawes Centre for Future Crime sits on the Home Office’s Science Advisory Council, whose work is very usefully fed into the work being done at the Home Office. Colleagues at the Ministry of Justice keep criminal law under constant review, in light of research by such bodies and what we see in the courts and society. I hope that reassures my noble friend that the points she raised, which are covered by organisations such as the Dawes Centre, are very much in the mind of government.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, explained very effectively the nuances of how behaviour translates to the virtual world. He is right that we will need to keep both offences and the framework under review. My noble friend Lady Berridge asked a good and clear question, to which I am afraid I do not have a similarly concise answer. I can reassure her that generated child sexual abuse and exploitation material is certainly illegal, but she asked about sexual harassment via a haptic suit; that would depend on the specific circumstances. I hope she will allow me to respond in writing, at greater length and more helpfully, to the very good question she asked.
Under Clause 56, Ofcom will also be required to undertake periodic reviews into the incidence and severity of content that is harmful to children on the in-scope services, and to recommend to the Secretary of State any appropriate changes to regulations based on its findings. Clause 141 also requires Ofcom to carry out research into users’ experiences of regulated services, which will likely include experiences of services such as the metaverse and other online spaces that allow user interaction. Under Clause 147, Ofcom may also publish reports on other online safety matters.
The questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, about international engagement are best addressed in a group covering regulatory co-operation, which I hope we will reach later today. I can tell him that we have introduced a new information-sharing gateway for the purpose of sharing information with overseas regulators, to ensure that Ofcom can collaborate effectively with its international counterparts. That builds on existing arrangements for sharing information that underpin Ofcom’s existing regulatory regimes.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, relate to providers’ judgments about when content produced by bots is illegal content, or a fraudulent advertisement, under the Bill. Clause 170 sets out that providers will need to take into account all reasonably available relevant information about content when making a judgment about its illegality. As we discussed in the group about illegal content, providers will need to treat content as illegal when this information gives reasonable grounds for inferring that an offence was committed. Content produced by bots is in scope of providers’ duties under the Bill. This includes the illegal content duties, and the same principles for assessing illegal content will apply to bot-produced content. Rather than drawing inferences about the conduct and intent of the user who generated the content, the Bill specifies that providers should consider the conduct and the intent of the person who can be assumed to have controlled the bot at the point it created the content in question.
The noble Lord’s amendment would set out that providers could make judgments about whether bot-produced content is illegal, either by reference to the conduct or mental state of the person who owns the bot or, alternatively, by reference to the person who controls it. As he set out in his explanatory statement and outlined in his speech, I understand he has brought this forward because he is concerned that providers will sometimes not be able to identify the controller of a bot, and that this will impede providers’ duties to take action against illegal content produced by them. Even when the provider does not know the identity of the person controlling the bot, however, in many cases there will still be evidence from which providers can draw inferences about the conduct and intent of that person, so we are satisfied that the current drafting of the Bill ensures that providers will be able to make a judgment on illegality.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My concern is also whether or not the bot is out of control. Can the Minister clarify that issue?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It depends on what the noble Lord means by “out of control” and what content the bot is producing. If he does not mind, this may be an issue which we should go through in technical detail and have a more free-flowing conservation with examples that we can work through.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
This is a very interesting discussion; the noble Lord, Lord Knight, has hit on something really important. When somebody does an activity that we believe is criminal, we can interrogate them and ask how they came to do it and got to the conclusion that they did. The difficulty is that those of us who are not super-techy do not understand how you can interrogate a bot or an AI which appears to be out of control on how it got to the conclusion that it did. It may be drawing from lots of different places and there may be ownership of lots of different sources of information. I wonder whether that is why we are finding how this will be monitored in future so concerning. I am reassured that the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, is nodding; does the Minister concur that this may be a looming problem for us?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly concur that we should discuss the issue in greater detail. I am very happy to do so with the noble Lord, the noble Baroness and others who want to do so, along with officials. If we can bring some worked examples of what “in control” and “out of control” bots may be, that would be helpful.
I hope the points I have set out in relation to the other issues raised in this group and the amendments before us are satisfactory to noble Lords and that they will at this point be content not to press their amendments.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to a thought-provoking and, I suspect, longer debate than we had anticipated. At Second Reading, I think we were all taken aback when this issue was opened up by my noble friend Lord Sarfraz; once again, we are realising that this requires really careful thought. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his also quite long and thoughtful response to this debate.
I feel that I owe the Committee a small apology. I am very conscious that I talked in quite graphic detail at the beginning when there were still children in the Gallery. I hope that I did not cause any harm, but it shows how serious this is that we have all had to think so carefully about what we have been saying—only in words, without any images. We should not underestimate how much this has demonstrated the importance of our debates.
On the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am a huge enthusiast, like the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for the wonders of the tech world and what it can bring. We are managing the balance in this Bill to make sure that this country can continue to benefit from and lead the opportunities of tech while recognising its real and genuine harms. I suggest that today’s debate has demonstrated the potential harm that the digital world can bring.
I listened carefully—as I am certain the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has been doing in the digital world—to my noble friend’s words. I am encouraged by what he has put on the record on Amendment 125, but there are some specific issues that it would be helpful for us to talk about, as he alluded to, after this debate and before Report. Let me highlight a couple of those.
First, I do not really understand the technical difference between a customer service bot and other bots. I am slightly worried that we are defining in the specific one type of bot that would not be captured by this Bill. I suspect that there might be others in future. We must think carefully through whether we are getting too much into the specifics of the technology and not general enough in making sure we capture where it could go. That is one example.
Secondly, as my noble friend Lady Berridge would say, I am not sure that we have got to the bottom of whether this Bill, coupled with the existing body of criminal law, will really enable law enforcement officers to progress the cases as they see fit and protect vulnerable women—and men—in the digital world. I very much hope we can extend the conversation there. We perhaps risk getting too close to the technical specifics if we are thinking about whether a haptic suit is in or out of scope of the Bill; I am certain that there will be other technologies that we have not even thought about yet that we will want to make sure that the Bill can capture.
I very much welcome the spirit in which this debate has been held. When I said that I would do this for the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I did not realise quite what a huge debate we were opening up, but I thank everyone who has contributed and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(iii) is not a sanctioned entity (see subsection (3A)).”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment, combined with the next amendment in the Minister’s name, is that any entity which is designated for the purposes of sanctions regulations is not a “recognised news publisher” under this Bill, with the result that the Bill’s protections which relate to “news publisher content” don’t apply.
“(3A) A “sanctioned entity” is an entity which—(a) is designated by name under a power contained in regulations under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 that authorises the Secretary of State or the Treasury to designate persons for the purposes of the regulations or of any provisions of the regulations, or (b) is a designated person under any provision included in such regulations by virtue of section 13 of that Act (persons named by or under UN Security Council Resolutions).”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment, combined with the preceding amendment in the Minister’s name, is that any entity which is designated for the purposes of sanctions regulations is not a “recognised news publisher” under this Bill, with the result that the Bill’s protections which relate to “news publisher content” don’t apply.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the next amendment in the Minister’s name ensure that restrictions on a user’s access to content resulting from the user voluntarily activating any feature of a service do not count as restrictions on users’ access for the purposes of Part 3 of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the previous amendment in the Minister’s name ensure that restrictions on a user’s access to content resulting from the user voluntarily activating any feature of a service do not count as restrictions on users’ access for the purposes of Part 3 of the Bill.
Branded Health Service Medicines (Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That this House regrets that the Branded Health Service Medicines (Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 propose a 27.5 per cent claw back rate which significantly exceeds that required by comparable countries, and which risks seriously damaging future investment in the research and development (R&D) of new drugs in the United Kingdom for the NHS, investment in the life sciences more generally, and the manufacture of branded medicines and their availability to the NHS; further regrets the short and insufficient consultation period for these measures of just 39 days over the Christmas period; and notes with concern that the UK’s share of global pharmaceutical R&D has fallen by over one-third between 2012 and 2020, and that the UK’s medicine production volumes, clinical trial delivery, and global share of new medicine launches have also all declined in recent years. (SI 2023/239)
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad to introduce this debate, and thankful to noble Lords who have stayed to take part in it. Underpinning this debate is a major concern about the current state of the UK economy, beset as it is with low growth, low productivity, workforce shortages, regional inequality and a dilapidated infrastructure; yet we have no industrial strategy. The Government have raised corporation tax; it is little wonder that Sir James Dyson recently accused the Government of having a “stupid” and “short-sighted” approach to the economy and business in the UK. Indeed, as Theresa May’s former chief of staff, Nick Timothy, put it on 8 May, there is an alarming decline in manufacturing as a percentage of GDP.
We ought, at least, to welcome the Prime Minister’s launch of the Government’s plan to create the UK’s place and cement it as a science and technology superpower by 2030. My concern is that the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are doing everything they can to inhibit that ambition. The life sciences industry is one of the most successful and important pillars of the UK economy, contributing more than £94.2 billion a year and 200,000 jobs in this country. Two-thirds of this is generated by the biopharmaceutical sector. The industry’s pipeline of new medicines is equally impressive.
We are at great risk of seeing this economic success falter under the watch of the Government, as companies are reducing their level of investment because of the imposition of a massive clawback that equates to one-quarter of sales revenue. We are already seeing very worrying trends in investment levels. From 2012 to 2020, the UK’s share of global pharmaceutical R&D spend decreased by more than a third. Since 2018, the UK has been falling down the global rankings across all phases of industry clinical trials. UK manufacturing production volumes have fallen by 29% since 2009. We all know that the NHS is far too slow to adopt new innovation and new medicines.
The UK is falling behind comparable countries as an early-launch market. Companies are making decisions to delay, or even not to launch, in the UK. These can be clinically important medicines that address many of the NHS’s priorities. Compared to leading countries in Europe—Italy, Spain, Germany and France—we have experienced the largest decline in our global share of new medicine launches between 2016 and 2021. This is the background to the statutory instrument that we are debating today.
I believe and hope this debate can influence the negotiations that have just started with the industry over the next phase of the voluntary scheme, otherwise known as VPAS—various noble Lords used to know it as PPRS. Under these regulations, companies in the statutory scheme will be required to pay to the Secretary of State 27.5% of their 2023 net sales income received for the supply of those medicines to the NHS.
The Government’s argument is that continued high sales growth in 2022 has led to an increase in the payment percentages in the VPAS scheme from 15% in 2022 to 26.5% in 2023, which is higher than was projected at the time of the 2022 statutory scheme consultation. As a result, the Government have ratcheted up the statutory scheme required payment rate. My argument is that both the voluntary and statutory schemes—companies have to be in one or the other, and can switch between them—are becoming a major impediment to future investment in the UK. The proposed rate of 27.5% will place the UK as a global outlier. In countries that operate similar clawback arrangements, current rates include 12% in Germany, 7.5% in Spain and 9% in Ireland, and all those countries spend more on medicines per head than we do. How on earth can the Government’s stated aim to grow the life sciences industry, as set out in the Life Sciences Vision and just recently articulated by the Chancellor, be delivered if industries expect to pay twice the level here that they do in Germany?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I intervene in this short debate just to make a number of points that I feel strongly about and have done for quite a long time, because now is an important moment, when the Government are entering the process of negotiating the voluntary price access scheme starting at the beginning of next year.
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has sought and secured this debate: it is really important. I do not disagree with any of the points he made, and he and I know that in past debates, together with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, we have often made these points—not least when we were debating the legislation which has given the Government the powers to secure whatever pricing outcome they are looking for, frankly. We do not actually have any pharmaceutical pricing freedom in this country; we effectively have government control of it.
The purpose of the regulations is not really in debate: to ensure that the statutory scheme and voluntary scheme align. We have been in a position where they did not align when we had the Gilead example, and that is not a place we want to go back to; we want to ensure that the schemes align, if we need two such schemes at all. That is my starting point. I have no registrable interests, although as a former Secretary of State I was very much involved in these issues, and as a Member of Parliament for South Cambridgeshire I probably had, in my time in the other place, a greater interest directly in the pharmaceutical industry, the life sciences sector and the R&D activity in this country than did Members for any other constituency.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is right that there is a relationship at this point between the scheme’s rebate level and the willingness or otherwise of internationally mobile investment and international pharmaceutical boards to consider the United Kingdom as a location for investment. The impact assessment does not sufficiently recognise that truth. It more or less works on the basis that this was the result of the old scheme, it is all for a few months and will all be replaced next year. I fear that is not how the world works. There will be discussions at international board level where people say, “We used to think the United Kingdom was the best place in Europe”—arguably, the best place in the world—“to conduct pharmaceutical research, but at the moment we are not sure that is the case because, if we were to launch in the United Kingdom, the level of pricing rebate being imposed on us makes the risks associated too great”.
From my point of view, clearly this can be remedied with a VPAS next year which re-establishes, from the industry’s point of view, a more predictable level of rebate. I have to say that the VPAS, the statutory scheme, is based on a serious fallacy that there is such a thing within the healthcare industry of a fixed drugs budget. I know of no healthcare system that thinks that is a logical way of approaching it. The drugs budget must be part of a health budget. We have budgets in order to deliver health outcomes. We do not have a drugs budget in order to secure a health outcome, we have a total health budget. The idea that the Government should intervene in order specifically to confine and restrict the amount that we spend on medicines in the healthcare system is wrong.
We should try to get away from that. I am not saying that we should not try to ensure that we get the best possible value for money for the medicines that we buy. The NHS in this country is effectively a monopsony, so we have every possibility of having extremely competitive medicine prices, but frankly we are being, as my mother would have said, penny wise and pound foolish. If we save a bit on NHS purchasing and parade to the rest of the world that we have the lowest medicine prices, the inevitable result—which we have seen—is a doubling of the number of pharmaceutical companies withdrawing their products from NICE evaluations. That is not a place where we want to be. We want those evaluations to take place.
I am going to finish with this thought. Even at this stage, I hope they are looking at this not only in the pharmaceutical companies, not only in ABPI but inside the department and inside the Treasury. I think all of our experience is that at the end of the day these things were determined more in the Treasury and No. 10 than they were in the Department of Health. I did not actually see a PPRS negotiation completed in my time, but I know perfectly well that is what happens. When they read this, I hope they will say: “Why don’t we move away from this kind of system?” The idea of a rate of return regulation as a mechanism for industry control is so out of date, it is practically neolithic. We have the benefit in this country of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence which has acknowledged expertise in health technology assessment. It should make assessments.
We have in NHS England an increased capacity and propensity to negotiate medicines prices regardless of what NICE says about evaluations anyway. Let us put those two together—we have argued this many times—and enter into negotiations on medicines pricing with the industry. Wherever we can, we should operate on the basis of a market. We have a market in generics and biosimilars. We are close to market on branded generics and biosimilars, but the branded medicines are inside this scheme. They should not be inside it; they should be the subject of negotiated pricing in what is effectively a market context. They should have to demonstrate where there is a benefit to a branded generic or a branded biosimilar relative to one which is not branded but is simply generic.
But for those where there is exclusivity, clearly there is going to be a negotiated price, and it is in our interests for that negotiation to take account not only of the incremental cost effectiveness, not only the quali-benefit, as it were, but also the societal benefits and the innovation benefit of new medicines. Let us say for the sake of argument that in the course of the next five years we were suddenly to find that we had a blockbuster new medicine that gave us immense advantages in terms of delaying the onset of dementia. It is not inconceivable that that could happen. As things stand, the scheme is designed for the pharmaceutical industry to derive no benefit from the fact that it has brought forward a new medicine of that scale and advantage. That cannot be right. If, in the context of healthcare, medicines occupy a stronger position, they should secure greater funding. If, relative to them, medicines do not do the job, they should have lesser funding, but this should be a healthcare and a health budget calculation, not a rate-of-return prior regulation. I hope that, even at this stage, the Government and the industry will think of whether there might be a better way of conducting negotiations on medicines pricing in this country.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I support the regret Motion moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I agree with quite a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said, but I am not going to be as wide-ranging as him. The Minister may be relieved to know that.
I speak from the perspective of having been a Pharmaceuticals Minister who negotiated a 7% reduction in the price of branded medicines, under the old PPRS, without damaging the UK’s life sciences industry and with the agreement of the Treasury. So it is possible to do these things and make such schemes work if, across government—we will come back to that—there is a willingness to engage properly with the industry. What we see here is that failure across government to deal with the industry.
Unfortunately, the regulations before us will, as has been said, significantly damage the UK life sciences sector. That was confirmed for me by the briefing received from the ABPI and some of the pharmaceutical companies that have also set out their views in relation to these regulations.
The regulations increase the repayments by pharmaceutical companies in the statutory price scheme to bring them into line with the already high levels in the voluntary price scheme, so we have a scheme which is catching up to an already unsatisfactory scheme. That is a wonderful achievement for government departments to have delivered. Government departments seem to have simply ignored the warnings they have been given about what will happen if they press on with the regulations as they stand. Instead, they have produced what I would regard as an unconvincing and wordy impact assessment, which has already been commented on. It totally downplays the warnings from the industry. The industry made its position very clear in the ABPI briefing for this debate. It points out that the proposed rebate of 27.5% of companies’ revenues
“is a rapid escalation from historical and international norms. Prior to this the average payment rate across the last four years was 10.6% and in 2022 the rate was 14.3%”.
That is almost a doubling of what the rate was a year or so ago.
When one looks at comparator countries, as has been mentioned, the UK rate is an extreme outlier within western Europe. Some countries do not even have comparable schemes, but in those that do, the rates are 12% in Germany and 7.5% in Spain and Ireland. The only comparable clawbacks to the UK’s are in Romania and Greece, two countries that, if I may say so, are hardly in the Premier League in terms of the life sciences. The ABPI brief goes on to state that
“the UK is already seeing worrying signs of decline in the UK life sciences industry including in R&D investment, access to clinical trials and medicines launches with companies making long-term decisions on the future of their UK footprint.”
The new proposed rate will accelerate this investment and jeopardise the availability of new medicines, which will lead to poorer NHS performance and patient outcomes. The ABPI contrasts the UK’s approach with incentives to new life sciences investments in France and Ireland, where Pfizer has recently announced big investments in both countries. AstraZeneca has followed suit in Ireland. The ABPI briefing is also supported by the briefing from AbbVie, a top-five, US-headquartered global biopharmaceutical company. It points out that the NHS already lags behind other countries in the take-up of new medicines. Branded medicines expenditure is reducing in the NHS, while the NHS budget is increasing. That is no mean achievement. I never got to that stage when I was the Pharmaceuticals Minister.
UK patient access to industry clinical trials is declining rapidly, and the average annual loss in the UK’s share of R&D spending is declining by about 3% a year. The briefing from Roche, another major company, is in a similar vein to that from AbbVie. This is not just the industry complaining about these regulations; these concerns are shared by patient groups. Gene People, which supports people with genetic conditions, has set out in its evidence the impact of these regulations for patients and on their access to the drugs that they will require over time.
I am genuinely puzzled by why the Department of Health and Social Care has simply ignored the evidence provided by the industry and patient groups on the damage that these regulations will do to UK life sciences and UK plc. The ABPI commissioned research which found that continued high payment rates in both the statutory and voluntary schemes would cost the UK £50 billion in GDP and £17.9 billion in tax revenue because of lost R&D investment of £5.7 billion by 2028. These are considerable losses to the UK economy. There is not a mention of them in the impact assessment. The ABPI company survey also suggests that repayment rates of around 24% across both the voluntary and statutory schemes
“would result in job losses in over 9 out of 10 companies”.
The savings to the NHS budget from these rebate schemes is modest compared to the economic damage that they do.
Despite all this evidence, Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care are ploughing on with these regulations, seemingly unaware that the industry’s timescales for making R&D investment decisions are much closer than they realise. In the next year or so, these decisions will be taken in relation to 2030 onwards. Somewhat bizarrely, 2030 is the date the Prime Minister is talking about for cementing the UK’s place as a science and technology superpower.
It crossed my mind as I prepared for this debate whether the Prime Minister and No. 10 are aware of the contradictions between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Prime Minister’s aspirations for the UK economy. It is also strange that on the very day that we are debating this regret Motion on these regulations, the Chancellor is sitting with the industry at the Life Sciences Council, discussing the life sciences sector in this country. It seems an interesting coincidence.
I should like clarification from the Minister on one point and to ask him a question. The point of clarification is whether, as the usual convention requires, he is speaking fully on behalf of the Government in responding to the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. My question relates to the new discussions on the voluntary scheme, which are taking place or have begun. Can the Minister confirm that these discussions are indeed taking place? If so, what is the point of pursuing these regulations if, in these new discussions, there is the possibility of a more positive approach to rebates under both schemes, given the more sensible proposals put on the table by the ABPI—the Minister may be able to confirm this—which suggest that we should be talking about single-figure rebates if we want this country’s life sciences industry to be successful?
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his Motion, and for giving us an opportunity to debate a series of questions raised by the statutory instrument about the life sciences sector more broadly.
I do not think that it is enough for us simply to say, “Look, Britain is great”, and expect that to act as a magnet for international pharmaceutical companies to invest in it. We certainly have a very strong sector and excellent skills, but the market is not sentimental: it reacts to financial signals. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was quite right to put us in the position of those people sitting in boardrooms, where soft signals such as the Prime Minister holding a summit are fine but the determinations will be based on hard numbers in spreadsheets. That is the way businesses work.
The concern that we should have in considering the statutory instrument is whether this settlement will be absorbed as simply the cost of doing business in the UK or whether it will change behaviour of businesses in a negative way. On all sides of the House, I think we hope that it will not do the latter. The ideal outcome is that businesses continue to invest in spite of taking a hit, but the risk that that will not be the case is genuine and deserves the debate that we are having today.
We have already seen some companies move from the voluntary to the statutory scheme. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate how many. I understand that the rates are similar, but it is a pretty strong signal when a company says in that board discussion that it is important for them to say, “We are not taking this lying down. We are upset. Therefore, we will pay what we have to pay, but only if you make us do it. We are not willing to do it on a voluntary basis.” As I said, the numbers may look similar, but the signal seems pretty clear to me. I hope the Minister can indicate the scale of the trend and his views on whether we should be concerned that that is happening.
It is interesting to note from the Explanatory Notes to the legislation that the consultation responses were nearly uniformly negative. I was going to say that they were uniformly negative, but they were not: only 30 out of 33 were. I was fascinated by this comment in paragraph 10.3, which referred to having more responses than in previous years. It said:
“It is likely this rise in the number of responses reflects a stronger level of interest in the consultation from industry in advance of negotiations for a new voluntary scheme to succeed VPAS, which expires at the end of 2023.”
I suggest that the increased number of consultations reflects something else: it is a cry for help and a protest against the fact that the rate is now over 20% and seems to be rising inexorably. Businesses are not responding in greater numbers just because of something happening in the process but because of the substance. When the noble Lord, Lord Warner, made his 7% reduction some years ago, I suspect he would not have had the same number of responses, because the reduction was not at the levels we are seeing now. The fact that we are at over 20%, and that there seems no prospect that that will reduce, means that businesses want to engage.
Here is the question for the Government: what signal do they want to send to these major companies that produce medicines that our population depends on? Is it that the trend is going to improve over time, so that they are encouraged to invest in test facilities and research in the UK—that they can expect to have more free cash flow, as it were, from the sales that they are making in the UK, to invest back into the UK? Or will the trend stay the same, at a level that they have told us they already find unacceptable, or even worsen? As the Covid backlog is, hopefully, dealt with more expeditiously, there will be more dispensing of branded drugs, and there is a scenario in which things continue to get worse. If companies feel that they have less to invest, those signals will be negative.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his usual expert and comprehensive explanation of his regret Motion on this SI, which is so important for the future of the NHS and the UK’s pharmaceutical industry and life sciences sector.
While the Government’s argument for maintaining equivalence between the two schemes makes sense, we certainly do not want companies to choose to leave the voluntary scheme for better rates. We on these Benches fully recognise the strong concerns about the impact and potential damage that the 27.5% clawback rate will cause to the manufacturer of branded medicines, to the availability of those medicines to the NHS and its patients and to future investment in the research and development of new drugs.
I point out that this is the first opportunity, on such an important subject, that we have had to discuss in depth the key issues my noble friend and other speakers across the House have raised, since the short Grand Committee debate last October on pharmaceutical research and development spending. The Minister will recall that it was his first debate as Health Minister and that he surprised us all by bursting into maiden speech mode when he summed up the debate. He expressed his confidence that the Government
“through Life Sciences Vision … will develop the end-to-end improvements required to attract an ever-growing proportion of pharmaceutical investment to the UK”.—[Official Report, 13/20/22; col. 135GC.]
He also made the acknowledgement that growing the UK’s proportion of global pharmaceutical investment meant improving
“every aspect of the life science ecosystem”.—[Official Report, 13/20/22; col. 133GC.]
As my noble friend and other expert speakers have shown today, this is just not happening.
The continuing dramatic decline in the UK’s share of global pharmaceutical investment is clear evidence of this, causing the loss of billions of pounds to the industry over the past 10 years. We have heard the stark figures. The NHS faces huge challenges and obstacles to becoming an effective innovation partner in supporting the access to and uptake of new and innovative drugs, which are so critical to developing better outcomes for patients and creating a thriving life sciences ecosystem. If the NHS continues to be slow on the uptake of innovative medicines and treatments, the UK could lose its position as a world leader in life sciences, particularly with the rapid advancements in biotechnology and AI.
For the UK to become a destination of choice for cutting-edge research, urgent action has to be taken to reverse the sharp decline in industry clinical research trials within the NHS and to address the standstill we have reached in developing the comprehensive strategy on patient data and research that is vitally needed. We need to balance the safeguards for patients and public engagement with the ability of accredited researchers to access the data they need to develop the valuable research at the heart of innovative medicines and treatments. What consideration are the Government giving to further embedding research within the NHS, both to underline the importance of patient participation and to allow a more direct link between health and science? During Covid we saw how, with the right drive and attitude, this can be done successfully for vaccine development, with life-saving results.
That is why the background and context of the proposals in this SI are so important. Despite the “remote” risk optimism of the impact assessment, and all the flaws that noble Lords outlined, the SI’s proposals for a substantial clawback, in 2023, of net sales income for UK biopharmaceutical companies greatly increases the risk of them reducing their current level of R&D investment. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of how other countries that have similar clawback schemes—Ireland, Germany and Spain—managed to keep their clawback rates considerably lower than half what is proposed in the UK. This was mentioned by a couple of speakers. What assessment have the Government made of the impact these lower rates would have on investment in the UK? Why do they think that AbbVie and Lilly chose to leave the voluntary scheme?
In 2023, manufacturers of branded drugs in the voluntary scheme will be required to return almost £3.3 billion—or 26.5% of sales—to the Government, up from around £0.6 billion in 2021 and £1.8 billion in 2022. ABPI says that this means that the money spent on branded drugs has declined by 14% in real terms over the past decade, despite rising demand. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, pointed out that, overall, the savings to be made are minor when compared with the likely damage.
On the consultation exercise, I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of how 39 days of consultation over the Christmas period was sufficient to provide this. This is made even starker by the fact that 32 out of 33 respondents opposed the proposals. One thing we know businesses need in order to invest their money is certainty, but they are not getting it.
Finally, today’s discussions have made a convincing case for taking a long, hard look at the current scheme and how it is working. Negotiations are under way for the new voluntary scheme for pricing, access and growth, and we will watch them carefully. The priority must be to find a solution that allows patient access to the best-quality treatments, with good value for the NHS and taxpayer, while ensuring a fair return for the industry. We need to secure arrangements that will build confidence and provide mutual benefit for the NHS and industry. Can the Minister provide an update on the early talks or negotiations that have taken place? I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about how this SI’s approach could be paused in the light of any significant developments that are likely to take place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for the debate, and I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing forward this important subject. It was clear from the contributions of noble Lords that we all want the same thing here, and this is a discussion about how best to achieve it. We all want the UK to be a
“science and technology superpower by 2030”,
as quoted by the Prime Minister. We all want a thriving life science sector, we want access to the best medicines for the NHS and we all want to ensure that the NHS is achieving value, in terms of money for the front line—I think we are united on those things. I also commend the fact that this debate was very much a discussion, so I will respond in that vein, rather than reading out a speech. I will try to discuss this from the Government’s point of view. I apologise if that means that I might not come across as quite as polished, but I would rather respond directly to the points raised.
We would all accept that we are striking a delicate balance here: between having value for the NHS—through, for example, the funding of £2.5 billion this year—and having value and making savings for frontline services, which we all want to see. While we are focusing on those, we also want to make sure that we do not go too far and damage what is, and what we want to be, a thriving sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked whether the Government are being complacent about this. The words of the Prime Minister, saying that he wants a negotiated outcome with the ABPI, are probably the strongest sentiment in terms of wanting a sensible, negotiated outcome. At this point, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that I am responding on behalf of the Government.
As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, pointed out, just today, the Chancellor is having a round table with the life sciences industry. That, too, is very much about getting a solution that works all the way round. Having said that, please remember that some of the comments I am making in this debate are about a balance. We are all aware that we are entering into a negotiation and obviously, in any negotiation, sides make points—sometimes at the negotiating table and sometimes publicly. Please take my comments in that vein; we want to make sure that a balance is brought to the debate.
Lord Warner (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s flow. He said that we are having the fruitful discussions that the Prime Minister wants with the industry and that they are starting to progress. However, the industry itself is starting with a figure in the single figures, nowhere near 27%. I am curious as to why we are having this discussion about progressing these regulations, as they seem to be going in totally the opposite direction from the aspirations the Prime Minister has.
Lord Markham (Con)
The mechanics behind this debate—I was planning to say that my noble friend Lord Lansley made this point—are about the alignment of the voluntary and statutory schemes. I think that we would all agree that it is sensible that the two are roughly aligned. We can argue over how high or low that figure should be, but we would agree, I think, that it is quite sensible that the two are aligned. If you had large disparities between the two, you would disadvantage, for instance, the members who have joined the VPAS system.
Lord Warner (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. We are talking about signals given to the outside world, in these discussions that are now taking place about the voluntary scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked, rather elegantly, why do we have two schemes in the first place? There is something very odd about levelling up to a voluntary scheme’s level with a big increase and, at the same time, sitting down with the industry and saying how much we love it and that we want a new, agreed programme, when the industry is talking about figures which are nowhere near the figures in these two schemes. It seems almost politically inept.
Lord Markham (Con)
As I said, this is about the scheme and the pricing for this year. The negotiations happening now are about future years, while, technically, this debate is about making sure that the alignment is there for this year and its pricing. Given that the discount has been decided on for this year for the voluntary scheme, having alignment will ensure fairness, so that members in the voluntary scheme are not suddenly disadvantaged against the statutory scheme—which would happen if we were not putting in a similar price. It does not in any way predicate what a negotiated outcome might be for future years.
In terms of a future negotiation, if there was a VPAS-type scheme—again, everything is on the table—you would have the argument about alignment. Most people would accept, as my noble friend Lord Lansley was saying, that having an alignment between the two is a sensible mechanism. The real debate today is about what level that discount should be. Regarding the balance—and I am not making any value judgment about what the right level is—when this was first forecast in 2018, a forecast was put out about what the discount would be over a five-year period, and in year 5 it showed a discount in 2023 of 31.1%. Those were the projections made, at that time—in 2018—the ABPI welcomed the scheme as an innovative one. In fact, today, the discount is less than that, at 26.5%. This was all known and projected as part of the scheme at the time. That is not to say that, in these negotiations, it should not be reset or that we should not make sure that there is a sensible conversation, but I am trying to do this while making sure that there is a balance in the negotiation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I think he has responded in a positive way, which is gratifying and, I hope, sets the foundation for a proper negotiation with the industry to get a jointly owned voluntary scheme which will incentivise global pharma to invest in the UK.
For me, two or three themes come from this. First, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about the curiosity of a fixed drugs budget, and I found it curious when the Minister said we need value for money on medicines in order to have resources for front-line services. But medicines are a front-line service. Why is it a good thing to increase the number of doctors and nurses and buy more medical equipment, but it is suddenly shock-horror to spend more on medicines? What would we do without medicines? It is curious. I have never understood why the Department of Health has such a downer on the medicines budget, when it has just said—and I declare an interest as a member of the GMC—that it wants to see a massive expansion in medical school places. Why is the medicines budget regarded as such a negative factor? It defies all understanding; of all the great advances we have made in healthcare, how many have been made through new medicines? And I have to say that new medicines are rather easier to get than extra staff.
Lord Markham (Con)
May I just clarify? I completely agree that medicines are of course valuable. My comments were not about not spending money on medicines but about getting value for what we spend on medicines—not the quantity, not the quality, but the price that we are paying. I think that all noble Lords would agree that we want to make sure that we are getting the best value on pricing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I fully accept that, but the sentiment that comes through is something that is shared throughout the National Health Service: that drugs expenditure, per se, is something to be held down. That is why, even though we have NICE, and bilateral negotiations—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said—between NHS England and pharma companies in relation to specific drugs, at local level you have formularies and all sorts of mechanisms designed to ration medicines to patients. It is a curiosity about our whole approach. I agree with the Minister that one needs to start with a health budget. If we have—and I hope we do—new medicines coming on in relation to, say, Alzheimer’s, we will need to spend extra money in order to invest in them.
My second point—also made by the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Allan, and my noble friend Lady Wheeler—is that it is very important that this is seen as a cross-government approach. If this is seen simply an issue for the Department of Health and NHS England in terms of the NHS budget, we will never get the kind of agreement that we need. If the Prime Minister is true to his word in terms of trying to reset the relationship—as the Minister implied—that is very welcome indeed.
This has been a very useful debate and I am very grateful to the Minister and other noble Lords. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Online Safety Bill
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
“Animal cruelty
A1_ An offence under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (unnecessary suffering).A2_ An offence under section 19 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (unnecessary suffering).A3_ An offence under section 1 of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 (offences).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a number of animal welfare offences to the list of priority offences outlined in Schedule 7.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this is an unusual group: it has just one amendment—Amendment 134 in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. It has also been signed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, whom I thank; I know that the right reverend Prelate is currently in a debate in Grand Committee.
This amendment seeks to add animal cruelty offences to the list of priority offences set out in Schedule 7, which would require platforms to proactively identify and remove content that depicts animal cruelty, including torture and death. This content is increasingly common, and it is shocking—films of cats being kicked about as footballs, dogs being set on fire and monkeys being ensnared into plastic bottles with dogs then being set upon them. All this is widely shared and viewed, and none of it is properly addressed by social media companies. These animal cruelty offences clearly meet the criteria of prevalence, risk of harm and severity of that harm, which have been set out and previously used by the Government to justify additions to the list.
I turn first to prevalence. The Social Media Animal Cruelty Coalition database comprises over 13,000 social media links showing animal abuse, collected over the past two years. Social media platforms often fail to remove animal cruelty films when they are reported, despite that being a clear contravention of their policies. In fact, less than 50% of links reported by the coalition since August 2021 have been removed, with predictions of a “rapid proliferation” of animal cruelty footage over the years ahead. This analysis is supported by the RSPCA, which received 756 reports of animal cruelty on social media in 2021, compared with 431 in 2020 and 157 in 2019.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 134, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, which was so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. The Government accepted the Joint Committee’s recommendation that priority offences should be put in the Bill, and that is now contained in Schedules 5, 6 and 7. In particular, Schedule 7 sets out the priority offences. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, has nailed it in setting out why these animal suffering-related offences fall within the Government’s criteria.
When the Government responded to the Joint Committee, they accepted our recommendation that we should put priority content in the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said, the criteria are very clearly set out in paragraph 86 of their report:
“The prevalence of such content on regulated services … The risk of harm being caused to UK users by such content; and … The severity of that harm”.
The noble Baroness has absolutely set out how these offences fall within those criteria: the prevalence of these offences; the abuse that is present; the viewing by children and its impact on them; the impact on animal welfare, which would be positive if this content were treated as a priority offence; and the very strong public support.
Of course—the noble Baroness did not quite go here, but I will—there is a massive contrast with the inclusion of the encouragement of immigration offence in Schedule 7. These offences have far greater merit for inclusion in Schedule 7. I very much hope the Minister will accede to what I think is an extremely reasonable amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for speaking so powerfully, as ever. I very much recognise the harms and horrors of cruelty to animals online or anywhere else. The UK has a proud history of championing and taking action on animal welfare, and the Government are committed to strengthening animal welfare standards and protections.
Our Action Plan for Animal Welfare demonstrates the Government’s commitment to a brighter future for animals both at home and abroad and provides a foundation for conversations on how we can continue to improve animal welfare and conservation in future. I can also reassure your Lordships that this Bill will tackle some of the worst online activities related to animal cruelty.
Amendment 134 seeks to add certain specified animal offences to the list of priority offences in Schedule 7. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Bill will already tackle some of the worst examples of animal cruelty online. This includes, for example, where the content amounts to an existing priority offence, such as extreme pornography, which platforms must prevent users encountering. Equally, where content could cause psychological harm to children, it must be tackled. Where the largest services prohibit types of animal abuse content in their terms of service, the Bill will require them to enforce those terms and remove such content. Improved user reporting and redress systems, as mandated by the Bill, will make it easier for users to report such content.
The Bill, however, is not designed to address every harm on the internet. For it to have an impact, it needs to be manageable for both Ofcom and the companies. For it to achieve the protections envisaged since the start of the Bill, it must focus on its mission of delivering protections for people. Schedule 7 has been designed to focus on the most serious and prevalent offences affecting humans in the UK, on which companies can take effective and meaningful action. The offences in this schedule are primarily focused on where the offences can be committed online—for example, threats to kill or the unlawful supply of drugs. The offences that the noble Baroness proposes cannot be committed online; while that would not stop them from being added for inchoate purposes, the Government do not believe that platforms would be able to take effective steps proactively to identify and tackle such offences online.
Crucially, the Government feel that adding too many offences to Schedule 7 that cannot be effectively tackled also risks spreading companies’ resources too thinly, particularly for smaller and micro-businesses, which would have to address these offences in their risk assessments. Expanding the list of offences in Schedule 7 to include the animal cruelty offences could dilute companies’ efforts to tackle other offences listed in the Bill which have long been the priority of this legislation.
Beyond the Bill, however, the Government are taking a very wide range of steps to tackle animal cruelty. Since publishing the Action Plan for Animal Welfare in 2021, the Government have brought in new laws to recognise animal sentience, introduced additional legislative measures to tackle illegal hare-coursing, and launched the animal health and welfare pathway as part of our agricultural transition plan. We will, of course, continue to discuss these important issues with colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who lead on our world-leading protections for animals, but, for the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept this amendment. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his considered reply, outlining the ways in which he believes the Bill supports where this amendment is going. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his support. Indeed, it is my view that the criteria have been met for inclusion of these animal welfare offences in this list of priority offences. It is, of course, disappointing that the Minister does not share the view that we have expressed.
Perhaps I could pick up a point from the Minister’s response. It seems to me that something that is illegal offline should also be illegal online. If something is illegal under the various Acts referred to but there is user-to-user content of these animal cruelty films, for example, is the Minister saying that this will be covered by the Bill in its current form?
I note that the Minister has spoken of continuing discussions with Defra, which is very welcome. I am also requesting a meeting to pursue this. It is something on which we could make progress, and I hope that the Minister would be open to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“10A_ An offence under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the specified offence to Schedule 7, with the effect that content amounting to that offence counts as priority illegal content.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As noble Lords will recall from the earlier debate on this issue, His Majesty’s Government take tackling violence against women and girls extremely seriously. This is why we have ensured that the Bill provides vital protections for women and girls, so that they can express themselves freely online without fear of harassment or abuse.
As noble Lords know, the Bill places strong duties on providers regarding illegal content. The Bill takes an approach which protects all users, but the framework accounts for the fact that some offences can disproportionately affect certain people. To that end, we have already listed several priority offences in Schedule 7 that we know disproportionately affect women and girls. These include sexual exploitation, intimate image abuse— including so-called revenge pornography—and extreme pornography.
In addition, I want to be clear that the Bill will also cover content which intentionally encourages priority offences, an issue that was raised as a concern in our previous debate. Paragraph 33 of Schedule 7 has the effect that inchoate offences of encouraging or assisting a priority offence are themselves to be treated as priority offences under the Bill. As a result, for example, where there is content that intentionally or knowingly encourages harassment online, services will have proactive duties in relation to this content.
Furthermore, the Bill will soon—as I mentioned earlier—introduce new intimate image abuse offences to tackle behaviour, such as the sharing of deep-fake images. These new offences will be listed as priority offences, as is already the case for the current revenge pornography offence under Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. These offences are a major milestone for protecting women and girls, and will be introduced to the Bill as soon as possible. They will sit alongside the Bill’s other criminal provisions, such as its offences on cyberflashing, false communications and threatening communications.
Although I appreciate the intention behind Amendments 269 and 270 and look forward to hearing the arguments made by the noble Lords who will speak to them, I remain concerned by the approach suggested to change Clause 167 to a consent-based model rather than the current intent-based approach. We are confident that the offence, as drafted, captures acts of cyberflashing, including when supposedly done “for a joke”—which, of course, it certainly is not. This is because the focus of the offence as drafted remains firmly on the perpetrator’s abhorrent behaviour and not on the actions of the victim, as would happen with a consent-based approach.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 270 in the name of my noble friend Lady Featherstone, who I regret to tell the House is still indisposed, and to support Amendments 269 and 271 respectively in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Merron and Lady Berridge, which my noble friend also signed up to.
In the real world, if a man flashed his genitals at a woman or a girl in public, this would constitute a criminal offence punishable by up to two years in prison. Rightly so—she has no choice in the matter. He may do it to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, or to obtain sexual gratification. Apparently, he may hope that the girl or woman he flashes to will be overcome with desire for him, although you would be hard-pressed to find many cases of this pipe dream—pun intended—ever becoming a reality. More seriously, however, this behaviour can be a precursor to more serious offences, as happened with the murder of Sarah Everard.
In the online world, many things are done and said which would be totally unacceptable in real life. Therefore, while the motivation for physical flashing is usually to obtain sexual gratification or cause fear in the victim, in the permissive world of online other motivations are mooted—“for a laugh”, in the hope of reciprocal pictures being flashed back at the flasher, or even in the hope of initiating something physical—although in the online world, as well as in the real world, unsolicited images of male genitalia are rarely welcomed by women or girls.
Indeed, the vast majority of women who receive these unsolicited images are not laughing. Research by Professor Clare McGlynn KC at Durham University found that women report feeling violated, threatened, intimidated and harassed. They experience a loss of control, privacy and sexual autonomy. They feel personally targeted. Some women are bombarded with these images across social media and dating apps, so they are intimidated into changing their behaviour online as a result. This is in no one’s interests; it is something the Bill is intended to prevent. Research from Jessica Ringrose and colleagues at UCL found that 76% of teenage girls had been sent unwanted explicit images by their peers and by strangers. The women-orientated online dating platform Bumble produced a survey finding that 48% of millennial women had been cyberflashed in the last year alone.
The Law Commission recommended a new criminal offence of cyberflashing, and its recommendation has been incorporated in Schedule 7. The inclusion of cyberflashing as a potentially criminal offence is to be warmly welcomed. However, the premise of the Bill as it stands is motive based. This means that the prosecution must prove that the sender had the intention to cause distress, alarm or humiliation to the victim, or that sexual gratification was the motive and the sender was reckless as to any distress that might be caused. This means that many forms of cyberflashing, including when men are doing it to “have a laugh” or to show off to their friends, would not be covered, regardless of the harm caused to the victims. Currently, someone who sends a dick pic to a girl “for a laugh” is unlikely to be prosecuted if he thinks, “She should have found it funny too”. Really? If any noble Lord has evidence that most women enjoy unsolicited cyberflashing, let him bring it forward.
I ask the Minister the rhetorical question: how do you prove motivation? The Minister may have been told that many men send these images in the hope of getting nudes or other favours in return, and as a form of sexual gratification. Proving motive will be well-nigh impossible, and the sheer fact of having to prove it to get a conviction will put off police. They are hardly going to waste precious resources prying into senders’ backgrounds. How would you do that? Check out their porn habits, perhaps? This is the difficulty we have seen with the need to prove intent to cause distress in the distribution of intimate images offence. Under these strictures, very few prosecutions would result and girls and women would continue to suffer.
To my mind, and to the minds of all the women’s organisations that responded to the government consultations, it is all the wrong way around. Ultimately, the motivation of the perpetrator has no bearing on the outcome for the victim. They suffer regardless. If alarm, distress, humiliation, et cetera was caused, would the logical solution not be to take steps to prevent it in the first place? Would it not prevent a lot of suffering if the sender were to check that they were not going to cause those effects before sending the dick pics? It is not hard to do, but it may well cause someone who thinks it is a fun prank to send a picture of his willy to think again.
This amendment would send the clear message to men and boys that you have to have consent before you send your image. This would have an educational value, too. It is about learning how to respect women and girls and appreciate that they are different in their thinking from boys and men.
As it stands, sending unsolicited images could have the effect of bullying, intimidating or sexualising women and girls. This is not good enough, and we would be squandering the opportunity to protect women and girls. It is not difficult to ask whether it is okay before you send.
I do not understand the inconsistency of the Law Commission here. In its 2022 report on intimate image abuse, the Law Commission recommended an offence of taking and sharing intimate images without consent, regardless of motivation. It used the same arguments that Amendment 270 uses today, including difficulty in evidencing the intention of the perpetrator. In November 2022 the Government accepted the Law Commission’s recommendations. Surely the same principle applies to cyberflashing.
Amendment 270 has also addressed any circumstances in which use of legitimate images of genitals might be inadvertently caught in the net. These would, of course, not attract prosecution. I will not list them all here: they are in proposed new subsection (7) in the amendment. Young boys would be appropriately dealt with through the youth justice system: it is in no one’s interest to brand them with a criminal record, unless that would be in the public interest.
The argument boils down to priorities. The Bill as it stands prioritises boys’ and men’s rights to be “funny” over girls’ and women’s rights to live free from harassment and abuse. We must stop making women who receive such images responsible and hold those who commit gendered harms to account. I hope the Minister will agree.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 135A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I also support Amendment 269 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and Amendment 270 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and have added my name to both. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, good health and hope to see her back soon.
I welcome adding coercive control to Schedule 7 to ensure that content amounting to this offence counts as priority illegal content. Coercive control has a very damaging and long-term impact on mental health and, increasingly, abusers are maintaining their power and hold over victims through digital coercive control, which is like having invisible chains that you cannot break free from. This will send a clear message to tech companies that they must better understand and tackle online domestic abuse and will mean that perpetrators will be held accountable for their actions.
I also welcome the effort by the Government to criminalise cyberflashing. No one should be forced to see images of genitals. This is a growing form of sexual harassment of girls and women. Of course, I acknowledge that young boys and men can also be sent unwanted images. However, the majority of the cases involve images of male genitals being sent by men to women and girls. Very worryingly—as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt—research by Professor Jessica Ringrose from 2020 found that 76% of girls aged 12 to 18 had been sent unsolicited nude images of boys or men.
While I am pleased that concerns raised by women and women’s groups have been heard by the Government, the wording in the Bill does not go far enough to protect women and girls from this type of sexual harassment. With the present wording, an offence is based on motive rather than consent, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. I also thank Professor Clare McGlynn, Bumble and many others who have made a strong case for a consent-based cyberflashing offence rather than the motive-based approach proposed by the Government.
I put my name to these amendments because the offence in its current form will not be effective. It relies on the victims of cyberflashing, who will mostly be women and girls, to prove that the motive or intention in sending the image of genitals was deliberately to cause distress or for sexual gratification, so I ask: why should the onus be put on the victim to prove the sender’s intent when it comes to reporting cyberflashing? I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to this question.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have added their name to my Amendment 271, which arose out of concerns that there are now seemingly several offences that laudably aim to protect women but are not being enforced effectively. The most notable in this category is the low rate of rape cases that are prosecuted and lead to convictions. The amendment is not affected in theory by the definition of cyberflashing, whether it is in the form recommended by the Law Commission, that of specific intent, rather than being based on consent. However, in practice, if it remains in that specific intent form, then the victim will not be required to go to court. Therefore, in practice the amendment would be more effective if the offence remained on that basis. However, even if the victim on that basis does not need to go to court, someone who has been cyberflashed is, as other noble Lords have mentioned, unlikely to go to the police station to report what has happened.
This amendment is designed to put an obligation on the providers of technology to provide a reporting mechanism on phones and to collate that information before passing it to the prosecuting authorities. The Minister said that there are various issues with how the amendment is currently drafted, such as “the Crown Prosecution Service” rather than “the police”, and perhaps the definition of “providers of internet services” as it may be a different part of the tech industry that is required to collate this information.
Drawing on our discussions on the previous group of amendments regarding the criminal law here, I hope that my noble friend can clarify the issues of intent, which is mens rea and different from motive in relation to this matter. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there will be resources and expertise from the technology sector to provide these reporting mechanisms for the offences. One can imagine how many people will report cyberflashing if they only have to click on an app, or if their phone is enabled to retain such an image, since some of them disappear after a short while. You should be able to sit on the bus and report it. The tech company would then store and collate that, potentially in a manner that it would become clear. For instance—because this happens so much as we have just heard—if six people on the 27 bus multiple times a week report that they have received the same image, that would prompt the police to get the CCTV from the bus company to identify who this individual is if the tech company data did not provide that specificity. Or, is someone hanging out every Friday night at the A&E department and cyberflashing as they sit there? This is not part of the amendment, but such an app or mechanism could also include a reminder to change the security settings on your phone so that you cannot be AirDropped.
I hope that His Majesty’s Government will look at the purpose of this amendment. It is laudable that we are making cyberflashing an offence, but this amendment is about the enforcement of that offence and will support that. Only with such an easy mechanism to report it can what will be a crime be effectively policed.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I, too, wish the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, a very speedy recovery. Her presence here today is missed, though the amendments were very ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. Having worked in government with the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, I can imagine how frustrated she is at not being able to speak today on amendments bearing her name.
As my noble friend said, this follows our debate on the wider issues around violence against women and girls in the online world. I do not want to repeat anything that was said there, but I am grateful to him for the discussions that we have had since. I support the Government in their introduction of Amendment 135A and the addition of controlling or coercive behaviour to the priority offences list. I will also speak to the cyberflashing amendments and Amendment 271, introduced by my noble friend Lady Berridge.
I suspect that many of us speaking in this debate today have had briefings from the wonderful organisation Refuge, which has seen a growing number of cases of technology-facilitated domestic abuse in recent years. As a result of this, Refuge pioneered a specialist technology-facilitated domestic abuse team, which uses expertise to support survivors and to identify emerging trends of online domestic abuse.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to a publication released since we debated this last week: the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s violence against women and girls strategic threat risk assessment for 2023, in which a whole page is devoted to tech and online-enabled violence against women and girls. In its conclusions, it says that one of the key threats is tech-enabled VAWG. The fact that we are having to debate these specific offences, but also the whole issue of gendered abuse online, shows how huge an issue this is for women and girls.
I will start with Amendment 271. I entirely agree with my noble friend about the need for specific user reporting and making that as easy as possible. That would support the debate we had last week about the code of practice, which would generally require platforms and search engines to think from the start how they will enable those who have been abused to report that abuse as easily as possible, so that the online platforms and search engines can then gather that data to build up a picture and share it with the regulator and law enforcement as appropriate. So, while I suspect from what the Minister has said that he will not accept this amendment, the points that my noble friend made are absolutely necessary in this debate.
I move on to the cyberflashing amendment. It has been very ably covered already, so I do not want to say too much. It is clear that women and girls experience harms regardless of the motives of the perpetrator. I also point out that, as we have heard, motivations are very difficult to prove, meaning that prosecutions are often extremely unlikely.
I was very proud to introduce the amendments to what became the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. It was one of my first contributions in this House. I remember that, in the face of a lockdown, most of us were working virtually. But we agreed, and the Government introduced, amendments on intimate image abuse and revenge porn. Even as I proposed those amendments and they were accepted, it was clear that they were not quite right and did not go far enough. As we have heard, for the intimate image abuse proposals, the Law Commission is proposing a consent-based image abuse offence. Can my noble friend be even clearer—I am sorry that I was not able to attend the briefing—about the distinction between consent-based intimate image abuse offences and motive-based cyberflashing offences, and why the Government decided to make it?
I also gently point out to him that I know that this is complicated, but we are still waiting for drafting of the intimate image abuse offences. We are potentially running out of time. Perhaps we will see them at the next stage of the Bill—unless he reveals them like a rabbit out of a hat this afternoon, which I suspect is not the case. These are important offences and it will be important for us to see the detail so that we can scrutinise them properly.
Finally, in welcoming the Government’s amendment on coercive control, I say that it is generally poorly understood by technology companies. Overall, the use of the online world to perpetrate abuse on women and girls, particularly in the domestic abuse context, is certainly being understood more quickly, but we are all playing catch-up in how this happens while the perpetrators are running ahead of us. More can be done to recognise the ways that the online world can be used to abuse and intimidate victims, as the Government have recognised with this amendment and as the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, said. It is very necessary in debating the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks at the end of this debate.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to add my name to Amendment 271, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has spoken so comprehensively. I too heard the criticisms made by the Minister, but they do not take away from the intention behind that amendment, which is really important. Like others, I hope to convey the well wishes from around the House to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. I am grateful the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for introducing this whole section with a great deal of clarity.
I will not repeat what has been said about the traumas involved, because that has been covered. It seems that one of the real difficulties is how people in receipt of these ghastly images and experiences can report them and get something done.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I welcome government Amendment 135A and the inclusion in the Bill of the new offence of cyberflashing.
I understand why questions have been raised, and indeed arguments advanced, about the way in which this offence has been crafted and whether the onus should be on the perpetrator or the victim of such a crime. I tend to come down on the side of the Law Commission and what is in the Bill as it stands. I have thought about it, and I have listened carefully and read the various briefings. I have weighed it up and found it quite hard at times to make my mind up. On balance. I would stick with what is in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said something I am not sure is correct. She said that, in the way it is currently included in the Bill, it will be the responsibility of women and girls to show that they are harmed by this. My understanding is that the opposite of that is true; they just need to report it and the responsibility sits on the shoulders of the person distributing these images. I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be able to confirm that—or otherwise—when he comes to wind up.
The only other thing in that context which I will add—I think this has been touched on by others—is that it is important, in introducing this as a new offence, that we ensure that we educate young people away from what I have been told has now become quite a common practice as a way of expressing interest in one another. I do not think that, just because it is happening, we should tolerate it and say, “Okay, well that’s all right then”. I do not think that it is right, and we should be much clearer about advising and explaining to our young people why that is not the best way to express any kind of interest in anyone, whether they are of the opposite sex or of the same sex. I also understand this is a common practice among gay men as well. I just think that taking photographs of one’s genitals and distributing them to other people is not a good idea—that is my argument.
My noble friend Lady Berridge’s Amendment 271 is an interesting proposal. What I found compelling about it was her argument that we will introduce a new offence in the Bill, and, specifically in that context, she proposes a way to report receiving these pictures when people do not want to receive them, and to do so in a way that makes it easier for the police to see new trends and incidences emerging. It is then more likely that they would be able to pursue a perpetrator. However, although I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider this carefully, I do not know what the tech companies would argue about their position, having been given that responsibility. So I am interested in her proposal and think that it is worth proper consideration, but I say that without the benefit of an understanding of where the tech firms are on it. But, overall, I welcome what the Government propose and offer my support.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, alongside others, I very much welcome government Amendment 135A and how the Minister introduced it. But there is a big “but” as regards much of the rest of what he said. I very much welcome that this will be included as a priority offence, and I join other noble Lords in that—but there is still a view out there that women and girls are being short-changed by the Bill. The other day, we had a debate on the Violence Against Women and Girls Code of Practice, and the same feeling about the cyberflashing offence was very much there, which is why I strongly support Amendments 269 and 270, which would alter the nature of Clause 167.
The equivalence between online and offline was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Burt—I also regret that my noble friend Lady Featherstone has not been with us for some time—and she introduced extremely clearly and well that this kind of cyberflashing offence leads to other and worse offences in both the offline and the online worlds, as we have seen.
Like others, I am in debt to Professor McGlynn for her analysis of the proposed offence. We had evidence from UCL and the Bumble survey, and there is of course also the YouGov survey that shows that nearly half of young women aged 18 to 24 have been sent an unwanted penis image—that is an extraordinary figure. So all of the evidence of this offence is there.
We have heard differing views on the offence—the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Stowell, are on the side of the status quo on the nature of the offence. The fact is that the Government’s proposal covers only some cases of cyberflashing, where motivated by a desire to cause “distress” or for “sexual gratification” with recklessness about causing distress.
I am not a criminal lawyer, but, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, you have to show intent beyond reasonable doubt—that is where the onus on the victim arises. There is a very high barrier in a criminal offence. My noble friend made that point clearly, and the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, was absolutely right that, of course, if you make it a criminal offence, where the issue is about consent rather than intent, you can always be more lenient when an offence does not seem so egregious, where there is clear misunderstanding or where there are other mitigating factors—that is what happens under the criminal law.
This is all about proving the motive—that is the real problem; it is technically called mens rea or the intent—so we need a clear message, as my noble friend said. I believe that we are squandering an opportunity here; it could be a real opportunity for the Government to send a much more powerful signal that the Bill is about protecting women and girls, despite the very welcome addition of abuse under Amendment 135A.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, put her point extremely well. She made a very good case for another addition to the armoury of user-empowerment tools. Although I disagree with her about the ambit of the cyberflashing offence, she proposed something which would be extremely useful to add.
We ought to take heed from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, given her legal background. She referred to the Law Commission’s rather inconsistent approach. The very welcome proposal to extend the way that revenge porn events will apply seems to be extremely sensible. I am afraid that, in the battle of the professors, I prefer what Professor McGlynn is saying to what Professor Lewis is saying; that is the choice that I have made.
Following the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, talked about this issue, we need to call men to account. That is something that the Government need to pay heed to.
That is all I want to say on this subject. This is not just a technical aspect—it is not just a question of whether or not we accept the Law Commission’s advice in this particular case—it is about the difficulty that young women, in particular, will find in enforcing this offence, and we need to be very mindful of that.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very good and well-focused debate. We have focused deeply on the particular issue I will focus on in my speech about why there is a difference in the Government’s approach to what seem to be, on the surface, very similar instances of the evidence we have all been looking at, and are convinced by, that, in some way, the internet, as currently constructed, is gendered against women. Something must be done about that.
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this group. Amendment 135A is very well-drafted and appropriate for what we are doing. I have very little to comment on it. It is a difficult area, but I am glad that the Government are putting their money where their mouth was on this issue and that we are seeing some action coming forward.
My noble friend Lady Merron would have been speaking to our amendments in this group, but, unfortunately, she has been taken off for some treatment to her leg, which seems to have been slightly twisted. They follow on from the meeting that the Minister mentioned with Professor Lewis from the Law Commission, when she very expertly introduced this whole topic, explaining very carefully, and with great care and concern, the reasons why the Law Commission has proposed, and the Government have accepted, that the new law to be brought in on cyberflashing needs to be different. My problem with that was that it seemed, by the end of it, that the rationale for doing it differently from other offences of a similar nature and type was more to do with the fact that there were good reasons for having the ability to send dick pics—let us call them that, even though it is a horrible term to use.
It is sometimes necessary for pictures to be sent around, and examples of that were given. For example, in a medical situation in which a doctor, perhaps during the Covid epidemic, wanted to know about a patient’s particular problem in the genital area, a picture would be helpful in diagnosis. Sending that should not be made illegal. Other reasons were given. The argument was good, but not sufficient to trump the need to have in place a set of laws relating to the way in which the internet treats women and girls in this dimension that does not come from different directions and is not confusing but complementary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
I join all those who have sent our best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for a speedy recovery. I am grateful that noble Lords were able to take forward her points in this debate.
As I said at the outset, protecting women and girls online is an objective of this Bill, which is reflected by the number of priority offences we have included that disproportionately affect women and girls. This includes the addition of the controlling or coercive behaviour offence, and I am grateful for the support from across the Committee for that amendment. This, in addition to the new cyberflashing offence and other criminal law reforms, demonstrates our continued commitment to increase the safety of women and girls online.
The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Berridge and the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Gohir, relate to cyberflashing. The new cyberflashing offence, alongside the package of offences in this Bill, will bring significant benefit for women and girls across the UK, too many of whom have been subjected to the distressing behaviour that noble Lords have spoken about in this debate. We share the aim of noble Lords who have spoken in favour of those amendments to ensure that this offence is effective at stopping this behaviour.
Regarding Amendments 269 and 270, I want to reassure your Lordships that the intent-based approach in Clause 167 has been tested extensively both by the Law Commission and subsequently by His Majesty’s Government. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is correct that we do not automatically agree with what it says, but we do take the commission’s expert views very seriously. The Crown Prosecution Service has stated that it has no concerns about using the offence that has been drafted to bring perpetrators to justice. Indeed, it strongly supported the inclusion of the “sexual gratification” element, which would, according to the Crown Prosecution Service, enable it to prosecute this offence more effectively.
The offence will capture many instances of cyberflashing, such as where pictures are sent to strangers via AirDrop in a crowded railway carriage. I agree with the points noble Lords raised about the settings and the simple technological change that, at an operator level, could make a big difference here. We are well aware of the concern set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, that an intent-based approach may let perpetrators off the hook if they send images supposedly for a laugh. We do not accept that view. The courts will, in the normal way, consider all the evidence to determine whether the elements of the offence have been made out. It is of course never on the victim to have to prove the perpetrator’s intention; it is for the police to investigate alleged offences and for the Crown Prosecution Service to establish the perpetrator’s intention in court.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the inclusion of the word “humiliation” in Clause 167. This will catch many supposedly joke motives, since the perverted form of humour in these instances is often derived from the victim’s humiliation, alarm or distress. This offence has been crafted following calls, including by victims’ groups, to include an intention to cause the victim humiliation.
My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes said she was unable to attend the briefing we organised with the Law Commission so, for the benefit of those who were not able to join, let me reassure noble Lords that Clause 167 is based on the offence proposed by the Law Commission, which held an extensive public consultation with victims, the police, prosecutors and academics, and was drafted following further engagement with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Law Commission, as Professor Lewis set out in that briefing for your Lordships, did consider a consent-based approach, and its final report highlights the significant concerns expressed by respondents to its consultation. A consent-based offence, as the commission found, would result in overcriminalisation, capturing behaviour that does not warrant criminal sanction. For example, as Professor Lewis outlined at the meeting, it could capture a patient sending their doctor an image of their genitals for medical reasons. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, just made interrogating that. The commission found that it would also criminalise misjudged attempts at intimacy where there was, for example, no genuine intention to cause harm or upset. It has looked at these issues.
Requiring a specific intent is not new and is taken in line with other non-contact sexual offences, including “in person” flashing—the offence of exposure. The police and Crown Prosecution Service are very familiar with these offences and with the evidence that is needed in court to prove the required intent. Crucially an offence based on a lack of consent would shift the focus away from the actions and intentions of the perpetrator to the victim and what they may or may not have done. This would be likely to result in a victim’s previous sexual or private behaviour being interrogated in open court. We do not want victims of this behaviour to be put under that sort of pressure. We want the focus to be fully on the perpetrator’s actions and intentions. The provisions in the Bill have been carefully targeted to protect victims from the intrusive and disturbing behaviour that noble Lords have set out, not to subject them to an unnecessary and distressing interrogation of their private lives.
Changing the consent test to reasonable belief that the defendant would have consented, in order to avoid criminalisation, would not work. Applying this test would mean that it would be much easier for genuinely harmful and culpable cyberflashing to escape conviction. For example, it would make it easier for a defendant to make an excuse, such as claiming that they reasonably believed that a person had consented to see a picture because they were on a particular dating app or, as was discussed in the briefing with the Law Commission, claiming that the victim had smiled back at them in a meaningful way on a train. They are not, perhaps, strong defences, but they are not—I am sure—ones that noble Lords would want to encourage through the drafting of this amendment. We are confident that an intent approach is the most appropriate way to frame this offence and that it ensures that the criminal law is workable, so that we can bring perpetrators to justice.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in his flow. Just to go back a little bit, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, attempted to resolve the questions about where it was legitimate for material of the nature that he has been describing to be circulated. Would be accept that that approach has some merit? If so, then I go on to ask: is the decision still to go with intent rather than content for reasons other than relating to that particular point?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry, I was slightly distracted by noises off. Would the noble Lord mind repeating his question?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
It is a very narrow point, but it is important in terms of the overall approach that we are taking on this. The Minister very accurately described the reasons that the Law Commission came up with for moving back to an intent-based rather than content-based approach. I wanted to ask him to check whether the wording in the amendment that we signed up to, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone—ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and spoken to by many people around the Chamber—would cover off those points where there is legitimate reason for this material to be circulated. I used an unfortunate phrase that I will not repeat. Are the Government happy to accept that it is possible to get around that objection by the Law Commission by making legitimate those particular explicit reasons for those pictures being circulated? I make that point only to get an admission at the Dispatch Box that the Government could get round the issue that has been mentioned, but they are still deciding to go for an intent-based approach for other reasons, which the Minister has just adumbrated and which I accept are genuine.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
It may be helpful to the Minister to just repeat the terms of the amendment itself. If you reverse the point and do not have intent, you would still need to consider
“Whether a belief is reasonable”
which
“is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps that A has taken to ascertain whether B consents”.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has absolutely hit the mark on this. This would not lead to terrible consequences and injustices because of this particular qualification.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
In brief, we think the Law Commission has it right—
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
If the Minister could write to me on the point once he has had advice, or perhaps inspiration from the Box, that would be very helpful.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will certainly do so. It requires flicking through a number of amendments and cross-referencing them with provisions in the Bill. I will certainly do that in slower time and respond.
We think that the Law Commission, which looked at all these issues, including, I think, the questions put by the noble Lord, has done that well. We were satisfied with it. I thought its briefing with Professor Penney Lewis was useful in exploring those issues. We are confident that the offence as drafted is the appropriate one.
My noble friend Lady Morgan and others asked why both the Law Commission and the Government are taking a different approach in relation to intimate image abuse and to cyberflashing. We are taking action to criminalise both, but the Law Commission recommended different approaches in how to criminalise that behaviour to take into account the different actions of the perpetrator in each scenario. Sharing an intimate image of a person without their consent is ipso facto wrongful, as it is a violation of their bodily privacy and sexual autonomy. Sending a genital image is not ipso facto wrongful, as it does not always constitute a sexual intrusion, so greater additional culpability is required for that offence. To give an example, sending a photograph of a naked protestor, even without the consent of the recipient, is not always harmful. Although levels of harm resulting from behaviours may be the same and cause the same levels of stress, the criminal law must consider whether the perpetrator’s behaviour was sufficiently culpable for an offence to have been committed. That is why we think the intent approach is best for cyberflashing but have taken a different approach in relation to intimate image abuse.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that explanation, which is very helpful and there is a lot in his reply so far that we will have to bottom out. Is he able to shed any light at all on when we might see the drafting of the intimate image abuse wording because that would be helpful in resolving some of the issues we have been debating?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I cannot give a precise date. The Committee knows the dates for this Committee are a moveable feast, but we have been having fruitful discussions on some of the issues we have already discussed—we had one yesterday with my noble friend. I appreciate the point she is making about wanting to see the drafting in good time before Report so that we can have a well thought through debate on it. I will certainly reiterate that to the usual channels and to others.
Amendment 271 additionally seeks to require companies in scope to provide systems which enable users to report incidents of cyberflashing to platforms. Clauses 16 and 26 already require companies to set up systems and processes which allow users easily to report illegal content, and this will include cyberflashing. This amendment therefore duplicates the existing requirement set out in the Bill. Amendment 271 also requires in scope companies to report cyberflashing content to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Bill does not place requirements on in scope companies to report discovery of illegal content online, other than in the instances of child exploitation and abuse, reflecting the seriousness of that crime and the less subjective nature of the content that is being reported in those scenarios.
The Bill, which has been developed in consultation with our partners in law enforcement, aims to prevent and reduce the proliferation of illegal content and activity in the first place and the resulting harm this causes to so many. While the Bill does not place any specific responsibilities on policing, our policing partners are considering how best to respond to the growing threat of online offences, as my noble friend Lady Morgan noted, in relation to the publication last week of the Strategic Threat and Risk Assessment on Violence Against Women and Girls. Policing partners will be working closely with Ofcom to explore the operational impact of the Bill and make sure it is protecting women and girls in the way we all want it to.
I hope that helps noble Lords on the issues set out in these amendments. I am grateful for the support for the government amendment in my name and hope that noble Lords will be content not to move theirs at this juncture.
(a) section 24(A1), (B1), (C1) or (D1) (illegal entry and similar offences);(b) section 25 (assisting unlawful immigration).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the specified offences under section 24 of the Immigration Act to Schedule 7, with the effect that (amongst other things) content amounting to encouraging those offences (as per the Serious Crime Act 2007) counts as priority illegal content.
“22A_ An offence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (human trafficking).22B_ An offence under section 1 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 (asp 12) (human trafficking).22C_ An offence under section 2 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 (c. 2 (N.I.)) (human trafficking).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the specified offences to Schedule 7, with the effect that content amounting to those offences counts as priority illegal content.
“32A_ An offence under section 13 of the National Security Act 2023 (foreign interference).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the specified offence to Schedule 7, with the effect that content amounting to that offence counts as priority illegal content.
Ministerial Code: Investigation of Potential Breach
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister alone is the guardian of the Ministerial Code. The Prime Minister alone appoints the ethics adviser. The Prime Minister alone decides whether an alleged breach should be investigated; and whatever the outcome or conclusion of any report that is produced on a possible breach, the Prime Minister alone decides if a breach has actually occurred.
The Minister will be aware of demands and recommendations for greater independence. In the absence of such independence, and in light of the fact that so much lies with the Prime Minister, can she explain why calls for greater independence have been rejected by the Government? Will the Government publish the criteria on which the Prime Minister makes such judgments and explain today what those criteria are?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the Ministerial Code sets out the standards of conduct expected of Ministers and how they discharge their duties. As the noble Baroness said, the Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. That is indeed why he decides, as she has explained, but in light of advice from the independent adviser. The Prime Minister moved quickly to appoint an independent adviser, Sir Laurence Magnus, on whose advice he relies.
The noble Baroness asked why this system is not set up independently. This subject has been looked at by committees. Indeed, last year, as we discussed before, we did make some changes to the independent adviser’s powers and gave him more support. We believe that having an independent system would be a problem. An independent commission or system would amass considerable unelected power over the workings of government in somebody who does not have an elected mandate, without the checks and balances and accountabilities of elected politicians. We are here to debate, in a democratic way, circumstances that have gone on including, of course, the Home Secretary and the issue of the speed awareness course, which was the subject of this Question earlier in the week.
The criteria for investigating a breach, of course, depend on the circumstances. As the noble Baroness will know, the Ministerial Code is very wide ranging. It is the Prime Minister’s code, so he is rightly the decision-maker. The criteria for a particular investigation will depend on the issue being investigated.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this is a small issue concerning a larger problem, which is the unconstrained and unaccountable prerogative powers of the Prime Minister and the deterioration of relations between the Civil Service and Ministers, which has come up again and again in recent years. I am puzzled and disappointed by the Minister’s reply to the Leader of the Opposition. The Answer in the Commons made a very strong point of saying, “This is the Prime Minister’s code and the Prime Minister is, in effect, the judge and jury of everything that happens”.
Toward the end of the last Labour Government, there were some rather good committee reports in the Commons on whether we now needed to limit the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers. I wonder whether, if the Conservatives found themselves in opposition again, they would not perhaps wish to revive that debate. I would hope that a Labour Government—or another Government of some sort—would begin to address that problem. If the independent adviser is really independent, why does he not have the ability to start his own investigations and then present them to the Prime Minister?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will not speculate on what might happen under a different Government. I remind the noble Lord that there have been a number of reports on ethics and integrity, including from Nigel Boardman and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and, as I said recently, we will lay our responses in Parliament in due course. However, I draw the House’s attention again to Sir Laurence Magnus, who has been appointed and has set off in a robust way. His report, which I promised would come out in May, is due to be published today—it may already have been or will be any minute.
I also draw attention to the fact that we strengthened the remit of the independent adviser in 2022. Slightly contrary to what the noble Lord was saying, the adviser now has the ability to initiate an investigation under the Ministerial Code after consulting with the Prime Minister, and the normal expectation is that the Prime Minister would agree to such an investigation. We have also updated the code to include more specific references to the duty on Ministers to provide the independent adviser with information reasonably necessary for carrying out the role. As I said before, we have also strengthened the arrangements for the office of the independent adviser, providing him with a dedicated secretariat of civil servants. However, I come back to the point I made before to the noble Baroness: this must be elective—it has to be democratic. That is why the Prime Minister decides on these matters.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am struggling here. It seems to be a basic principle that justice should not only be done but seen to be done. These processes seem so arcane and opaque that I wonder whether the noble Baroness can assure us how this process passes that test—or does it not apply to the Ministerial Code?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I simply do not agree with the right reverend Prelate. The Prime Minister has been clear that professionalism, integrity and accountability are core values of the Government. A number of inquiries have been set up by the Prime Minister. He has moved quickly to set them up and to take steps when they have been completed. Most recently, he moved very quickly on the matter of the Home Secretary, which was causing a distraction earlier in the week. He consulted the independent adviser, who advised that on this occasion further investigation was not necessary, and the Prime Minister accepted that advice. As I said before, we need to be very careful to ensure that the Prime Minister has ultimate responsibility for the Ministerial Code. He reissued it in December when he came to power and he has made it clear that it is important that it is followed.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
Perhaps I can just ask for clarification from the noble Baroness. There was some discussion in 2018 about whether the Ministerial Code mandated Ministers to behave in a certain way. This related to compliance with international law. The noble Baroness will remember a certain Mr Brandon Lewis, who said in the House of Commons that he intended to break international law
“in a very specific and limited way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/20; col. 509.]
That led to the resignation of a top civil servant and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. However, it did not lead to the resignation of the then Attorney-General, who is the subject of this particular complaint. The young lady is not fit for high office in any case, but surely if the Court of Appeal says that the Ministerial Code does mandate compliance, how on earth can the Government justify any variation?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I was on the Back Benches when this important situation occurred in 2018, but I would say that the Ministerial Code is a matter for the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s judgment, as the noble Baroness said. I think she was trying to make a point about the current Home Secretary. However, I would say that we should allow the current Home Secretary to get on with her job. The distraction of the last week has been considerable. She is trying to do the right thing in a whole series of areas, from public order to immigration. She has apologised, expressed her regret on the matter of the speed awareness course and paid the fine for speeding. Some feel that that issue has been conflated and is a bit of a distraction. She needs to be given the opportunity to get on. The Prime Minister has looked into the matter and she has written at great length to explain the exact circumstances of it. You always end up looking at an individual case, as the noble Baroness did, but I am clear that this is the right approach.
Student Visas
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the contribution of international students to our universities and, indeed, our communities, is immense and a great asset to our country. Since 2018, there has been a tenfold increase in the number of dependants joining students in the UK, so we have not opposed the changes the Government propose. However, as usual with the Government, there is no impact assessment and no detail—just vague assertion. What assessment have the Government made of the number of people this change will affect in terms of both students and dependants, and what do the Government believe will be the actual impact of these rule revisions on the numbers?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The numbers are these. In March 2023, 477,931 sponsored study visas were granted to main applicants, which was 22% more than in March 2022. In the year ending March 2023, almost one-quarter, 24%, of all sponsored study-related visas granted were to dependants of students—149,400—compared with 15% in the year ending March 2022. Our indication is that 88% of those dependant visas were to those undertaking taught postgraduate courses, so the rule changes will have the effect of greatly reducing the availability of the dependency visas to those who might otherwise have used them, and therefore reduce the net intake.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who used to run the research side of the international relations department at the LSE. We had well over 50 research students while I was there. To my knowledge, all but one returned to their country of origin, or went elsewhere, after completion of their studies, and the one who remained, an Indian, is now teaching in a senior position in a British university. Is this a real problem, or is it part of the muddle of our migration statistics? Should we not be separating students who come here for either one or three years as temporary migrants and distinguish them from permanent migrants? The problem of our current migration statistics is that they lump everyone together, which as a result makes the whole problem look worse than it is.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord: it is a real problem, for the reasons I have just read out to the Chamber, with the statistics demonstrating the increase in dependants attending, in particular those from two countries. The numbers are startling and required action to change the rules, and I am very grateful for the support from the Official Opposition in doing that.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, may I raise the issue of British Overseas Territory passport holders having to apply for a student visa to come and study here? Not only do they have to apply for a visa but they are not allowed to apply directly; they have to apply via a high commission in a third-party jurisdiction, which is bonkers. Can we not allow them to come here directly without applying for a visa? They are British citizens after all. At the very least, if the Government will not change their policy, please may they apply directly from their own homes in the British Overseas Territory?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord raises an issue with which I am familiar and there is much to commend in what he says. Certainly, it is something that I will look into.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think the Minister answered the second part of the question asked by the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Why are we continuing to define international students as immigrants when they are clearly not in that category? Is he aware that nearly all OECD countries that have international students in considerable numbers do not define them as immigrants or migrants? They define them in a special category as overseas students. Why do we not move to doing that?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is clear that the students who have these visas are entitled to work for 20 hours a week, the dependants of students are entitled to work in an unrestricted way and they are obviously users of services provided by the state. For all those reasons, it makes sense that they be included in the net migration figures.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I speak as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Students and the president of UKCISA. Is the Minister aware that we are in a global race for international students? We are against Australia, the United States of America and Canada, in particular, and those countries offer far better postgraduate work opportunities than we do. We offer two years; Australia offers four, five and six years. Why do we keep including international students in our net migration figures? It is wrong and fooling the public. The USA and Australia treat them as temporary migrants, which is what they are. If you exclude international students from the net migration figures, maybe the Government will hit the targets they have wanted to hit for so many years.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I refer the noble Lord to the answer I gave some moments ago. It is worth saying, in relation to the first part of his question, that these changes will ensure that the UK’s higher education establishments are focused on recruiting students based on economic value and not on dependants, whose value in terms of student fees and wages is minimal. We have been successful in delivering our international educational goal of hosting up to 600,000 students per year by 2030 almost a decade earlier than planned and expect universities to be able to adapt to reduce dependant numbers.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Will the Minister answer my noble friend’s question about the two countries? Also, the current rules, which the Government are going to end, supported by the Labour Party, state:
“If you have a child while you’re in the UK, they do not automatically become a British citizen. You must apply for your child’s dependant visa”.
Can the Minister please reassure me that, under the Government’s plans, babies are not going to be separated from their parents?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The two countries that send the most students with dependants are Nigeria and India. Our points-based immigration system prioritises skills and talent over where a person comes from, in any event. We consider any impact of our changes proportionate in achieving the overall aim of reducing net migration and allowing dependants only for a specific cohort of students with the types of skills the UK is specifically seeking to attract to assist economic growth. In answer to the second part of the noble Lord’s question, on whether one would separate a mother from a child, obviously every case is fact-specific but the principle remains that if you apply for a student visa for a course other than a research graduate study course, you are not entitled to bring a dependant.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister just be clear? He talked with some pride about the Government’s international student strategy. If the outcome of this policy is fewer overseas students coming here to study at master’s level, will he consider that the policy has been a success or a failure?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the purpose of the policy is to bring down net migration.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say when this policy is going to start? Can he promise that it will not affect students who have already had offers or are in the process of applying?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, will the Government consider the overall need to have a much wider debate about the benefits of overseas students to this country? As far as I know from this morning’s figures, up to 480,000 came, together with 136,000 dependants. Although there may be an overall benefit in economic gain and plugging the resources of cash-strapped universities, there are other problems. They include not only having to pay costs towards healthcare and housing—or taking up healthcare, housing and education where there are dependants—but costs to the universities themselves. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, many universities are now tailoring courses to the needs of overseas students. A wider debate will be needed in the education department about whether this is the right thing for our UK universities.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. She is absolutely right that it is a balanced question; that is why this package of measures is targeted to achieve the objective of reducing migration. In addition to the proposal to remove the entitlement to bring dependants unless you are on a postgraduate research programme, the other aspects will, I hope, address the matters raised by my noble friend. In particular, they are: removing a student’s right to switch into a work visa route before studies are complete; reviewing the maintenance requirements for people applying for visas; clamping down on unscrupulous education agents; and improving communications about visa rules to universities and international students, along with improved and more targeted enforcement activity by the Home Office.
Net Migration Figures
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I shall now repeat an Answer given to an Urgent Question in another place. The Answer is as follows:
“Net migration to the UK is far too high. That was already clear from the previous set of official data. The ONS has today amended its previous published estimate of net migration for the year ending June 2022 to 606,000. The statistics published today show that net migration has flatlined since then. In the year ending December 2022, they show that net migration remains at an estimated 606,000. These particularly high figures are partly due to temporary and exceptional factors, such as the UK’s Ukraine and Hong Kong BNO schemes. Last year, 200,000 Ukrainians and 150,000 Hong Kong British overseas nationals made use of routes to life or time in the United Kingdom. Those schemes command broad support from the British public, and we were right to introduce them.
This Government remain committed to reducing overall net migration to sustainable levels. That is a solemn promise we made to the British public in our manifesto, and we are unwavering in our determination to deliver it. This week, we announced steps to tackle the substantial rise in the number of student dependants coming to the UK. The package of measures will ensure that we can reduce migration while continuing to benefit from the skills and resources our economy needs, because universities should be in the education business, not the immigration business. We expect this package to have a tangible impact on net migration. Taken together with the easing of temporary factors, such as our exceptional humanitarian offers, we expect net migration to fall to pre-pandemic levels in the medium term.
The public rightly expect us to control our borders, whether that is stopping the boats and addressing illegal migration or ensuring that levels of legal migration do not place undue pressure on public services, housing supply or integration. The Government are taking decisive action on both counts. Under the points-based system that we introduced post Brexit, we can control immigration; we must and we will.”
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, net migration figures are at a record high, despite promises in every Conservative manifesto since 2010 to reduce these figures, with the 2019 manifesto pledging that overall numbers would come down. Despite the Minister’s Statement, it has clearly gone wrong and is not working. Would it not be a start to tackle the doubling of work visas? Would it not be a start to end the unfair wage discount in the immigration system, which is undercutting UK wages and exploiting migrant workers? Why allow a civil engineer from Spain, for example, to be paid a 20% lower salary than the going rate for a British civil engineer? Why do the Government not tackle migration by barring employers and companies from recruiting foreign workers unless they are paid the going rate? Would that not be a start to tackling the migration problem?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the increase in net migration has been the result of global events, such as the world recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, and international events, as I outlined in the Statement, including the policy changes introduced as part of the new immigration system at the end of EU freedom of movement. All have had an impact on migration. The Migration Advisory Committee agrees that the discount available to employers employing foreign workers under the skilled worker route is a sensible solution for occupations where there are shortages, at least in the short term. However, no occupation should be on the shortage occupation list for ever. Sectors must therefore present a realistic strategy for ending their reliance on migration before such jobs can be added to the shortage occupation list, and present compelling evidence that they should remain.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, there is not time now, but perhaps the Government could initiate an informed cross-party debate on the long-term issues involved in migration. The pull factors in migration are that we have not been investing enough in education and training, and that companies have found it easier to recruit staff from abroad than to spend money training their own in too many instances. Also, in public health we need to reduce the number of people who are long-term unwell. There are also the push factors—climate change, conflict in other countries and, potentially, expulsion. The Turkish Government are talking about expelling several million refugees. The UK Government might wish to emphasise that we cannot manage migration without active international co-operation with our neighbours and others, which is almost entirely outside the current debate. Can the Government not attempt a constructive effort, to which I am sure other parties would respond?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am not quite sure what the noble Lord suggests would result from such a negotiation. Of course it is right that the Government discuss international migration issues on a regular basis. We saw that at the recent meeting of the Council of Europe. We recognise that no single measure will control immigration. As the impacts of temporary pressures become clearer, we will keep matters under review. The Government will continue to strike the balance between reducing overall net migration and ensuring that businesses have the skills that they need. We continue to support economic growth.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that a promise was made at the time of the referendum campaign that immigration would be reduced? Looking ahead to the forecast for this current year, mindful that he said in his reply that net figures would reduce, will the illegal migration forecast for 2023 be higher or lower than the figures that he has given us today?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am unwilling to engage in conjecture as to what the figures will be for the coming year, but it is certainly clear that the measures we have announced on the student route reform, which the House heard about on the previous Question, will have a considerable effect in reducing the levels of migration in those categories for the year commencing January 2024. We will have to see what the statistics reveal in due course.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has five priorities. One of them is to stop illegal migration through the boats crossing the channel. Everyone agrees that we must do everything we can to stop them. Another of his priorities is to grow the economy. If the Prime Minister wants this, why are we restricting businesses from getting the labour force they need if they cannot get it domestically? I just had a meeting with leading hoteliers. One of them is shortly opening one of the best hotels in London and is targeting under 100% occupancy: he cannot recruit the people he needs. We need to activate the shortage occupation list. That is the promise of the points-based system. That will help. If we exclude international students from net migration figures, we will not scare people with these high figures that are not a true representation of migration into this country.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord neatly identifies the balancing act that needs to be performed by the Government on net migration. Clearly the Government cannot permit circumstances to arise where employers utilise foreign labour over domestic labour for the pursuit of greater profit. Of course, the countervailing factor is the availability of labour. The Government are obviously aware of these issues and make their decisions accordingly.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, of today’s high figure, asylum seekers account for approximately 8%, and that, even if the Bill we discussed yesterday and will discuss the week after next were to reduce that figure to zero, it would make virtually no difference to the net migration figures?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The whole point of the Illegal Migration Bill is to prevent dangerous and illegal journeys across the channel and by other routes. It is addressing a different, specific issue, obviously with the added benefit that eliminating illegal migration would go towards the reduction of the net migration figure. But it is not suggested that the Bill is the sole answer to the problems arising from excessive net migration.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I do not blame my noble friend or the Home Secretary: since the 2004 free movement directive, no Government have been honest about immigration with the British people, including my own party when in government. “Take back control” does not mean that, among other things, we should have spent £1.3 billion so far this year on asylum seekers, their accommodation and other illegal migration funding, which is more than we have spent from the levelling-up funds on the north-east, the north-west, and Yorkshire and the Humber.
Amazingly, I find myself in agreement with the Liberal Democrats and Labour Front Bench. I respectfully say to the Minister that the idea put forward about wage differentials by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is absolutely right. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for too long, business has been addicted to cheap, foreign labour and has failed to properly train and pay our own indigenous workforce. If we are to have an honest debate, he has to concede that.
Finally, I say to the Minister that these figures are a potential existential threat not just to my own party’s electoral prospects but to people’s trust in moderate, mainstream politics. The alternative looks a lot worse unless we solve this problem.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I agree with some of what my noble friend has said. There is a measure of agreement across the House that the issue of salary discounts is very much in need of consideration. Of course, as the House will be aware, the Migration Advisory Committee is undertaking its review into the shortage occupation list, which I referred to a few answers ago. The Government asked the MAC to consider the 20% salary discount as part of the review when it commissioned it last year. We expect a report in the autumn, after which the Government will respond to any recommendations that it makes.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in the migration figures out this morning, the figures for the asylum backlog—the number of people who have been waiting more than six months for an asylum decision—show that, despite the promise from the Prime Minister to eliminate much of the backlog by the end of this year, the figure has increased by 10,000. There are now more than 128,000 people waiting more than six months for an asylum decision. Would the Minister promise the House that the Prime Minister’s pledge will be met by the end of this year, given that we are now at the end of May? Surely it is time to allow those people to work—indeed, some of them could be working in the hotel to which the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Baroness knows, the Government are taking immediate action to eliminate the backlog of people waiting for initial asylum decisions by the end of 2023. The Home Office has already doubled the number of decision-makers and the number will double again. To further accelerate decision-making, the Home Office is driving productivity improvements by simplifying and modernising the system. We have doubled the number of decision-makers in 2021-22, as I said, and we will continue to do so.
Online Safety Bill
Thursday 25th May 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 87(Rev)-IX(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Ninth Marshalled List) - (24 May 2023)
Lord Knight of Weymouth
“(d) be made publicly available, subject to appropriate redactions, on the date specified in the notice.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that Ofcom guidance under Clause 66 must outline how a platform’s terms of service would be considered “adequate and appropriate”, as required under a new Clause in the name of Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, as we have said many times, this is a complex Bill. As we reflect on the priorities for Report, we can be more relaxed about some of the specifics on how Ofcom may operate, thereby giving it more flexibility—the flexibility it needs to be agile in the online world—if we as a Parliament trust Ofcom. Building trust, I believe, is a triangulation. First, there is independence from government—as discussed in respect of Secretary of State powers. Secondly, we need proper scrutiny by Parliament. Earlier today I talked about my desire for there to be proper post-legislative scrutiny and a permanent Joint Committee to do that. The third leg of the stool is the transparency to assist that scrutiny.
Clause 68 contains the provisions which would require category 1, 2A and 2B services to produce an annual transparency report containing information described by Ofcom in a notice given to the service. Under these provisions, Ofcom would be able to require these services to report on, among other things: information about the incidence of illegal content and content that is harmful to children; how many users are assumed to have encountered this content by means of the service; the steps and processes for users to report this content; and the steps and processes which a provider uses for dealing with this content.
We welcome the introduction of transparency reporting in relation to illegal content and content that is harmful to children. We agree with the Government that effective transparency reporting plays a crucial role in building Ofcom’s understanding of online harms and empowering users to make a more informed choice about the services they use.
However, despite the inclusion of transparency reporting in the Bill representing a step in the right direction, we consider that these requirements could and should be strengthened to do the trust building we think is important. First, the Bill should make clear that, subject to appropriate redactions, companies will be required to make their transparency reports publicly available—to make them transparent—hence Amendment 160A.
Although it is not clear from the Bill whether companies will be required to make these reports publicly available, we consider that, in most instances, such a requirement would be appropriate. As noted, one of the stated purposes of transparency reporting is that it would enable service users to make more informed choices about their own and their children’s internet use—but they can only do so if the reports are published. Moreover, in so far as transparency reporting would facilitate public accountability, it could also act as a powerful incentive for service providers to do more to protect their users.
We also recognise that requiring companies to publish the incidences of CSEA content on their platforms, for instance, may have the effect of encouraging individuals seeking such material towards platforms on which there are high incidences of that content—that must be avoided. I recognise that simply having a high incidence of CSEA content on a platform does not necessarily mean that that platform is problematic; it could just mean that it is better at reporting it. So, as ever with the Bill, there is a balance to be struck.
Therefore, we consider that the Bill should make it explicit that, once provided to Ofcom, transparency reports are to be made publicly available, subject to redactions. To support this, Ofcom should be required to produce guidance on the publication of transparency reports and the redactions that companies should make before making reports publicly accessible. Ofcom should also retain the power to stop a company from publishing a particular transparency report if it considers that the risk of directing individuals to illegal materials outweighs the benefit of making a report public—hence Amendments 160B and 181A.
Amendments 165 and 229 are in my noble friend Lord Stevenson’s name. Amendment 165 would broaden the transparency requirements around user-to-user services’ terms of service, ensuring that information can be sought on the scope of these terms, not just their application. As I understand it, scope is important to understand, as it is significant in informing Ofcom’s regulatory approach. We are trying to guard against minimal terms of service where detail is needed for users and Ofcom.
The proposed clause in Amendment 229 probes how Ofcom will review the effectiveness of the transparency requirements in the Bill. It would require Ofcom to undertake a review of the effectiveness of transparency reports within three years and every five years thereafter, and it would give the Secretary of State powers to implement any recommendations made by the regulator. The Committee should note that we also include a requirement that a Select Committee, charged by the relevant House, must consider and report on the regulations, with an opportunity for Parliament to debate them. So we link the three corners of the triangle rather neatly there.
If we agree that transparency is an important part of building trust in Ofcom in doing this difficult and innovative regulatory job—it is always good to see the noble Lord, Lord Grade, in his place; I know he is looking forward to getting on with this—then this proposed clause is sensible. I beg to move.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, has given us an opportunity to talk about transparency reports with these amendments, which are potentially a helpful addition to the Bill. Transparency is one of the huge benefits that the legislation may bring. One of the concerns that the public have and that politicians have always had with online platforms is that they appear to be a black box—you cannot see what is going on in them.
In the entire edifice that we are constructing in the Online Safety Bill, there are huge opportunities to change that. The platforms will have to do risk assessments —there are measures in the Bill to make sure that information about these is put out—and they will have to take active steps to mitigate any risks they find. Again, we may get directions and guidance from Ofcom that will explain to the public exactly what is expected of them. The final piece of the jigsaw is the transparency reports that show the outcomes—how a platform has performed and what it has done to meet its obligations in dealing with content and behaviour on its services.
For the record, I previously worked for one of the platforms, and I would have said that I was on the pro-transparency wing of the transparency party inside the company. I believed that it was in the platform’s interest: if you do not tell people what you are doing, they will make things up about you, and what they make up will generally be worse than what you are actually doing. So there are huge advantages to the platforms from being transparent.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, has picked up on some important points in his Amendment 160B, which talks about making sure that the transparency report is not counterproductive by giving the bad guys information that they could use to ill effect. That is a valid point; it is often debated inside the platforms. Sometimes, I argued furiously with my colleagues in the platforms about why we should disclose information. They would ask, “What about the bad guys?” Sometimes I challenged that, but other times it would have been a genuine and accurate concern. The noble Lord mentioned things such as child sexual abuse material, and we have to recognise that the bad guys are incredibly devious and creative, and if you show them anything that they can use against you to get around your systems, they will try to do that. That is a genuine and valid concern.
The sort of thing that you might put into a transparency report is, for example, whether you have banned particular organisations. I would be in favour of indicating to the public that an organisation is banned, but you can see that the potential impact of that is that all the people you are concerned about would create another organisation with a different name and then get back on to your platform. We need to be alive to those kinds of concerns.
It is also relevant to Amendment 165 and the terms of service that the more granular and detailed your terms of service are, the better they are for public information, but there are opportunities to get around them. Again, we would have that argument internally. I would say, “If we are prohibiting specific hate speech terms, tell people that, and then they won’t use them”. For me, that would be a success, as they are not using those hate speech terms anymore, but, of course, they may then find alternative hate speech terms that they can use instead. You are facing that battle all the time. That is a genuine concern that I hope we will be able to debate. I hope that Ofcom will be able to mitigate that risk by discussing with platforms what these transparency reports should look like. In a sense, we are doing a risk assessment of the transparency report process.
Amendment 229 on effectiveness is really interesting. My experience was that if you did not have a transparency report, you were under huge pressure to produce one and that once you produced one, nobody was interested. For fear of embarrassing anyone in the Committee, I would be curious to know how many noble Lords participating in this debate have read the transparency reports already produced by Meta Platforms, Google and others. If they have not read them, they should not be embarrassed, because my experience was that I would talk to regulators and politicians about something they had asked me to come in to talk about, such as hate speech or child sexual abuse material, and I learned to print off the transparency report. I would go in and say, “Well, you know what we are doing; it’s in our transparency report”. They would ask, “What transparency report?”, and I would have to show them. So, having produced a transparency report, every time we published it, we would expect there to be public interest, but little use was made of it. That is not a reason not to do them—as I said, I am very much in favour of doing them—but, on their own, they may not be effective, and Amendment 229 touches on that.
I was trying to think of a collective noun for transparency reports and, seeing as they shed light, I think it may be a “chandelier”. Where we may get the real benefit is if Ofcom can produce a chandelier of transparency reports, taking all the information it gets from the different platforms, processing it and selecting the most relevant information—the reports are often too long for people to work their way through—so that it can enable comparisons. That is really good and it is quite good for the industry that people know that platform A did this, platform B did that, and platform C did something else. They will take note of that, compare with each other and want to get into the best category. It is also critical that Ofcom puts this into user-friendly language, and Ofcom has quite a good record of producing intelligible reports. In the context of Amendment 229, a review process is good. One of the things that might come out of that, thinking ahead, would be Ofcom’s role in producing meta transparency reports, the chandelier that will shed light on what the whole sector is doing.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, for once I want to be really positive. I am actually very positive about this whole group of amendments because more transparency is essential in what we are discussing. I especially like Amendment 165 from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, because it is around terms of service for user-to-user services and ensures that information can be sought on the scope as well as the application. This is important because so much has been put on user-to-user services as well as on terms of service. You need to know what is going on.
I want particularly to compliment Amendment 229 that says that transparency reports should be
“of sufficient quality to enable service users and researchers to make informed judgements”,
et cetera. That is a very elegant way in which to say that they should not be gobbledegook. If we are going to have them, they should be clear and of a quality that we can read. Obviously, we do not want them to be unreadable and full of jargon and legalistic language. I am hoping that that is the requirement.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Stevenson, as well as my noble friend Lady Featherstone. The essence of the message from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, about the need for trust and the fact that you can gain trust through greater transparency is fundamental to this group.
The Joint Committee’s report is now a historical document. It is partly the passage of time, but it was an extraordinary way in which to work through some of the issues, as we did. We were very impacted by the evidence given by Frances Haugen, and the fact that certain things came to light only as a result of her sharing information with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We said at the time that:
“Lack of transparency of service providers also means that people do not have insight into the prevalence and nature of activity that creates a risk of harm on the services that they use”.
That is very much the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is trying to get to by adding scope as well.
We were very clear about our intentions at the time. The Government accepted the recommendation that we made and said that they agreed with the committee that
“services with transparency reporting requirements should be required to publish their transparency reports in full, and in an accessible and public place”.
So what we are really trying to do is to get the Government to agree to what they have already agreed to, which we would have thought would be a relatively straightforward process.
There are some other useful aspects, such as the review of effectiveness of the transparency requirements. I very much appreciate what my noble friend just said about not reading transparency reports. I read the oversight reports but not necessarily the transparency reports. I am not sure that Frances Haugen was a great advert for transparency reports at the time, but that is a mere aside in the circumstances.
I commend my noble friend Lady Featherstone’s Amendment 171, which is very consistent with what we were trying to achieve with the code of practice about violence against women and girls. That would fit very easily within that. One of the key points that my noble friend Lord Allan made is that this is for the benefit of the platforms as well. It is not purely for the users. Of course it is useful for the users, but not exclusively, and this could be a way of platforms engaging with the users more clearly, inserting more fresh air into this. In these circumstances it is pretty conclusive that the Government should adhere to what they agreed to in their response to the Joint Committee’s report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
As ever, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I absolutely take, accept and embrace the point that transparency is wholly critical to what we are trying to achieve with the Bill. Indeed, the chandelier of transparency reports should be our shared aim—a greenhouse maybe. I am grateful for everyone’s contributions to the debate. I agree entirely with the views expressed. Transparency is vital in holding companies to account for keeping their users safe online. As has been pointed out, it is also to the benefit of the platforms themselves. Confident as I am that we share the same objectives, I would like to try to reassure noble Lords on a number of issues that have been raised.
Amendments 160A, 160B and 181A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, seek to require providers to make their transparency reports publicly available, subject to appropriate redactions, and to allow Ofcom to prevent their publication where it deems that the risks posed by drawing attention to illegal content outweigh the benefit to the public of the transparency report. Let me reassure the noble Lord that the framework, we strongly believe, already achieves the aim of those amendments. As set out in Clause 68, Ofcom will specify a range of requirements in relation to transparency reporting in a notice to categories 1, 2A and 2B. This will include the kind of information that is required in the transparency report and the manner in which it should be published. Given the requirement to publish the information, this already achieves the intention of Amendment 160A.
The specific information requested for inclusion within the transparency report will be determined by Ofcom. Therefore, the regulator will be able to ensure that the information requested is appropriate for publication. Ofcom will take into account any risks arising from making the information public before issuing the transparency notice. Ofcom will have separate information-gathering powers, which will enable the regulator to access information that is not suitable to be published in the public domain. This achieves the intention of Amendment 160B. There is also a risk of reducing trust in transparency reporting if there is a mechanism for Ofcom to prevent providers publishing their transparency reports.
Amendment 181A would require Ofcom to issue guidance on what information should be redacted and how this should be done. However, Ofcom is already required to produce guidance about transparency reports, which may include guidance about what information should be redacted and how to do this. It is important to provide the regulator with the flexibility to develop appropriate guidance.
Amendment 165 seeks to expand the information within the transparency reporting requirements to cover the scope of the terms of service set out by user-to-user providers. I very much agree with the noble Lord that it is important that Ofcom can request information about the scope of terms of service, as well as about their application. Our view is that the Bill already achieves this. Schedule 8 sets out the high-level matters about which information may be required. This includes information about how platforms are complying with their duties. The Bill will place duties on user-to-user providers to ensure that any required terms of service are clear and accessible. This will require platforms to set out what the terms of service cover—or, in other words, the scope. While I hope that this provides reassurance on the matter, if there are still concerns in spite of what I have said, I am very happy to look at this. Any opportunity to strengthen the Bill through that kind of clarity is worth looking at.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s comments. I am interrupting just because this is my amendment rather than my noble friend Lord Knight’s. The word “scope” caused us some disquiet on this Bench when we were trying to work out what we meant by it. It has been fleshed out in slightly different ways around the Chamber, to advantage.
I go back to the original intention—I am sorry for the extensive introduction, but it is to make sure that I focus the question correctly—which was to make sure that we are not looking historically at the terms of reference that have been issued, and whether they are working in a transparency mode, but addressing the question of what is missing or is perhaps not addressed properly. Does the Minister agree that that would be taken in by the word “scope”?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I think I probably would agree, but I would welcome a chance to discuss it further.
Finally, Amendment 229 intends to probe how Ofcom will review the effectiveness of transparency requirements in the Bill. It would require Ofcom to produce reports reviewing the effectiveness of transparency reports and would give the Secretary of State powers to implement any recommendations made by the regulator. While I of course agree with the sentiment of this amendment, as I have outlined, the transparency reporting power is designed to ensure that Ofcom can continuously review the effectiveness of transparency reports and make adjustments as necessary. This is why the Bill requires Ofcom to set out in annual transparency notices what each provider should include in its reports and the format and manner in which it should be presented, rather than putting prescriptive or static requirements in the Bill. That means that Ofcom will be able to learn, year on year, what will be most effective.
Under Clause 145, Ofcom is required to produce its own annual transparency report, which must include a summary of conclusions drawn from providers’ transparency reports, along with the regulator’s view on industry best practice and other appropriate information—I hope and think that goes to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, just before the Minister moves on—and possibly to save me finding and reading it—can he let us know whether those annual reports by Ofcom will be laid before Parliament and whether Parliament will have a chance to debate them?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I believe so, but I will have to confirm that in writing. I am sorry not to be able to give a rapid answer.
Clause 159 requires the Secretary of State to review in total the operation of the regulatory framework to ensure it is effective. In that review, Ofcom will be a statutory consultee. The review will specifically require an assessment of the effectiveness of the regulatory framework in ensuring that the systems and processes used by services provide transparency and accountability to users.
The Bill will create what we are all after, which is a new culture of transparency and accountability in the tech sector. For the reasons I have laid out, we are confident that the existing provisions are sufficiently broad and robust to provide that. As such, I hope the noble Lord feels sufficiently reassured to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, that was a good, quick debate and an opportunity for the noble Viscount to put some things on the record, and explain some others, which is helpful. It is always good to get endorsement around what we are doing from both the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. That is a great spread of opinion. I loved the sense of the challenge as to whether anyone ever reads the transparency reports whenever they are published; I imagine AI will be reading and summarising them, and making sure they are not written as gobbledygook.
On the basis of what we have heard and if we can get some reassurance that strong transparency is accompanied by strong parliamentary scrutiny, then I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“Duties on providers of online marketplace services
(1) This section sets out duties that apply in relation to providers of online marketplace services.(2) A duty to put in place proportionate systems and processes to prevent child users from encountering listings of knives for sale on the platform, including (where appropriate) excluding relevant listings from advertising or other algorithms.(3) A duty to put in place proportionate systems and processes to identify and remove listings of knives or similar products which are marketed in a manner which would reasonably appear to a user to—(a) promote violence or threatening behaviour,(b) encourage self-harm, or(c) look menacing. (4) A duty to put in place proportionate systems and processes to ensure, beyond reasonable doubt, that any purchaser of a knife meets or exceeds the minimum legal age for purchasing such items.(5) For the purposes of this section, the online marketplace may have regard to different age restrictions in different parts of the United Kingdom.(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(c), a knife may look menacing if it is, or appears to be similar to, a “zombie knife”, “cyclone knife” or machete.(7) In this section, “online marketplace service” means a service using software, including a website, part of a website or an application, operated by or on behalf of a trader, which allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with other traders or consumers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would introduce duties on online marketplaces to limit child access to listings of knives, and to take proactive steps to identify and remove any listings of knives or similar products which refer to violence or self-harm. While online sales of knives are not illegal, under-18s (under-16s in Scotland) should not be able to purchase them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendments 185A and 268AA in this group. They are on different subjects, but I will deal with them in the same contribution.
Amendment 185A is a new clause that would introduce duties on online marketplaces to limit child access to listings of knives and take proactive steps to identify and remove any listings of knives or products such as ornamental zombie knives that are suggestive of acts of violence or self-harm. I am sure the Minister will be familiar with the Ronan Kanda case that has given rise to our bringing this amendment forward. The case is particularly horrible; as I understand it, sentencing is still outstanding. Two young boys bought ninja blades and machetes online and ultimately killed another younger boy with them. It has been widely featured in news outlets and is particularly distressing. We have had some debate on this in another place.
As I understand it, the Government have announced a consultation on this, among other things, looking at banning the sale of machetes and knives that appear to have no practical use other than being designed to look menacing or suitable for combat. We support the consultation and the steps set out in it, but the amendment provides a chance to probe the extent to which this Bill will apply to the dark web, where a lot of these products are available for purchase. The explanatory statement contains a reference to this, so I hope the Minister is briefed on the point. It would be very helpful to know exactly what the Government’s intention is on this, because we clearly need to look at the sites and try to regulate them much better than they are currently regulated online. I am especially concerned about the dark web.
The second amendment relates to racist abuse; I have brought the subject before the House before, but this is rather different. It is a bit of a carbon copy of Amendment 271, which noble Lords have already debated. It is there for probing purposes, designed to tease out exactly how the Government see public figures, particularly sports stars such as Marcus Rashford and Bukayo Saka, and how they think they are supposed to deal with the torrents of racist abuse that they receive. I know that there have been convictions for racist content online, but most of the abuse goes unpunished. It is not 100% clear that much of it will be identified and removed under the priority offence provisions. For instance, does posting banana emojis in response to a black footballer’s Instagram post constitute an offence, or is it just a horrible thing that people do? We need to understand better how the law will act in this field.
There has been a lot of debate about this issue, it is a very sensitive matter and we need to get to the bottom of it. A year and a half ago, the Government responded to my amendment bringing online racist abuse into the scope of what is dealt with as an offence, which we very much welcomed, but we need to understand better how these provisions will work. I look forward to the Minister setting that out in his response. I beg to move.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak primarily to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, but I will also touch on Amendment 268AA at the same time. The amendments that I am particularly interested in are Amendments 200 and 201 on regulatory co-operation. I strongly support the need for this, and I will illustrate that with some concrete examples of why this is essential to bring to life the kinds of challenges that need to be dealt with.
The first example relates to trying to deal with the sexual grooming of children online, where platforms are able to develop techniques to do that. They can do that by analysing the behaviour of users and trying to detect whether older users are consistently trying to approach younger users, and the kind of content of the messages they may be sending to them where that is visible. These are clearly highly intrusive techniques. If a platform is subject to the general data protection regulation, or the UK version of that, it needs to be very mindful of privacy rights. We clearly have, there, two potentially interested bodies in the UK environment. We have the child protection agencies, and we will have, in future, Ofcom seeking to ensure that the platform has met its duty of care, and we will have the Information Commission’s Office.
A platform, in a sense, can be neutral as to what it is instructed to do by the regulator. Certainly, my experience was that the platforms wanted to do those kinds of activities, but they are neutral in the sense that they will do what they are told is legal. There, you need clarity from the regulators together to say, “Yes, we have looked at this and you are not going to do something on the instruction of the child safety agency and then get criticised, and potentially fined, by the Data Protection Agency for doing the thing you have been instructed to do”—so we need those agencies to work together.
The second example is in the area of co-operation around antiterrorism, another key issue. The platforms have created something called the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism. Within that forum, they share tools and techniques—things such as databases of information about terrorist content and systems that you can use to detect them—and you are encouraged within that platform to share those tools and techniques with smaller platforms and competitors. Clearly, again, there is a very significant set of questions, and if you are in a discussion around that, the lawyers will say, “Have the competition lawyers cleared this?” Again, therefore, something that is in the public interest—that all the platforms should be using similar kinds of technology to detect terrorist content—is something where you need a view not just from the counterterrorism people but also, in our case, from the Competition and Markets Authority. So, again, you need those regulators to work together.
The final example is one which I know is dear to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, which is fraudsters, which we have dealt with, where you might have patterns of behaviour where you have information that comes from the telecoms companies regulated by Ofcom, the internet service providers, regulated by Ofcom, and financial institutions, regulated by their own family of regulators—and they may want to share data with each other, which is something that is subject to the Information Commission’s Office again. So, again, if we are going to give platforms instructions, which we rightly do in this legislation, and say, “Look, we want you to get tougher on online fraudsters; we want you to demonstrate a duty of care there”, the platforms will need—certainly those regulators: financial regulators, Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office—to sort those things out.
Having a forum such as the one proposed in Amendment 201, where these really difficult issues can be thrashed out and clear guidance can be given to online services, will be much more efficient than what sometimes happened in the past, where you had the left hand and the right hand of the regulatory world pulling you in different directions. I know that we have the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum. If we can build on those institutions, it is essential and ideal that they have their input before the guidance is issued, rather than have a platform comply with guidance from regulator A and then get dinged by regulator B for doing the thing that they have been instructed to do.
That leads to the very sensible Amendment 201 on skilled persons. Again, Ofcom is going to be able to call in skilled persons. In an area such as data protection, that might be a data protection lawyer, but, equally, it might be that somebody who works at the Information Commissioner’s Office is actually best placed to give advice. Amendment 200—the first of the two that talks about skilled persons being able to come from regulators—makes sense.
Finally, I will touch on the issues raised in Amendment 268AA—I listened carefully and understand that it is a probing amendment. It raises some quite fundamental questions of principle—I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, might want to come in on these—and it has been dealt with in the context of Germany and its network enforcement Act: I know the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, can say that in the original German. That Act went in the same direction, motivated by similar concerns around hate speech.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, so few of us are involved in this discussion that we are now able to write each other’s speeches. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, for articulating some of my concerns, probably more elegantly than I will myself. I will focus on two amendments in this group; in fact, there are lots of interesting things, but I will focus on both the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton.
On the issue of proactive steps to remove listings of knives for young people, I am so sympathetic to this because in a different area of my life I am pretty preoccupied with the problem of knife crime among young people. It really bothers me and I worry about how we tackle it. My concern of course is that the police should be working harder to solve that problem and that we cannot anticipate that the Bill will solve all social problems. There is a danger of removing the focus from law enforcement in a real-world problem, as though removing how you buy the knife is the issue. I am not convinced that that helps us.
I wanted to reflect on the kind of dilemmas I am having around this in relation to the story of Mizzy that is doing the rounds. He is the 18 year-old who has been posting his prank videos on TikTok and has caused quite a stir. People have seen him wandering into strangers’ homes uninvited, asking random people in the street if they want to die, running off with an elderly lady’s dog and making fun of Orthodox Jews—generally speaking, this 18 year-old is obnoxious. His TikTok videos have gone viral; everybody is discussing them.
This cruelty for kicks genre of filming yourself, showing your face full to the camera and so on, is certainly abhorrent but, as with the discussion about knife crime, I have noticed that some people outside this House are attempting to blame the technology for the problem, saying that the videos should have been removed earlier and that it is TikTok’s fault that we have this anti-social behaviour, whereas I think it is a much deeper, broader social problem to do with the erosion of adult authority and the reluctance of grown-ups to intervene clearly when people are behaving badly—that is my thesis. It is undoubtedly a police matter. The police seem to have taken ages to locate Mizzy. They eventually got him and charged him with very low offences, so he was on TV being interviewed the other evening, laughing at how weak the law was. Under the laws he was laughing at, he could freely walk into somebody’s house or be obnoxious and get away with it. He said, “We can do what we want”. That mockery throws up problems, but I do not necessarily think that the Bill is the way to solve it.
That leads me to my concerns about Amendment 268AA, because Mizzy was quoted in the Independent newspaper as saying:
“I’m a Black male doing these things and that’s why there’s such an uproar”.
I then went on a social media thread in which any criticism of Mizzy’s behaviour was described as racist harassment. That shows the complexity of what is being called for in Amendment 268AA, which wants platforms to take additional steps
“to combat incidents of online racially aggravated harassment”.
My worry is that we end up with not only Mizzy’s TikTok videos being removed but his critics being removed for racially harassing him, so we have to be very careful here.
Amendment 268AA goes further, because it wants tech companies to push for prosecution. I really think it is a dangerous step to encourage private companies to get tangled up in deciding what is criminal and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, has exactly described my concerns, so I will not repeat them. Maybe I can probe this probing amendment. It also broadens the issue to all forms of harassment.
By the way, the amendment’s explanatory statement mentions the appalling racist abuse aimed at footballers and public figures, but one of the fascinating things was that when we number-crunched and went granular, we found that the majority of that racist abuse seemed to have been generated by bots, which takes us to the position of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, earlier: who would you prosecute in that instance? Bots not even based in the UK were generating what was assumed to be an outbreak of racist abuse among football fans in the UK, but the numbers did not equate to that. There were some people being racist and vile and some things that were generated in these bot farms.
To go back to the amendment, it goes on to broaden the issue out to
“other forms of harassment and threatening or abusive behaviour”.
Again, this is much more complicated in today’s climate, because those kinds of accusation can be deployed for bad faith reasons, particularly against public figures.
We have an example close to this House. I hope that Members have been following and will show solidarity over what has been happening to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, who is chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and tasked with upholding the equality law but is at the centre of a vicious internal row after her officials filed a dossier of complaints about her. They have alleged that she is guilty of harassment. A KC is being brought in, there are 40 complaints and the whole thing is costing a fortune for both taxpayers and the noble Baroness herself.
It coincided with the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, advising Ministers to update the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 to make clear that it refers to biological sex and producing official advice clarifying that trans women can be lawfully excluded from female-only spaces. We know how toxic that whole debate is.
Many of us feel that a lot of the accusations against the noble Baroness are ideologically and politically motivated vexatious complaints. I am distressed to read newspaper reports that say that she has been close to tears and has asked why anyone would go into public service. All this is for the crime of being a regulator upholding and clarifying the law. I hope it does not happen to the person who ends up regulating Ofcom—ending up close to tears as he stands accused of harassment, abusive behaviour and so on.
The point is that she is the one being accused of harassment. I have seen the vile abuse that she has received online. It is completely defamatory, vicious abuse and yet somehow it ends up being that, because she does not provide psychological safety at work and because of her views, she is accused of harassment and is the one in the firing line. I do not want us to introduce that kind of complexity—this is what I have been worried about throughout—into what is banned, removed or sent to the police as examples of harassment or hate crime.
I know that is not the intention of these amendments; it is the unintended consequences that I dread.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak chiefly to Amendment 262 in my name, although in speaking after the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who suggested that the grown-ups should control anti-social behaviour by young people online, I note that there is a great deal of anti-social behaviour online from people of all ages. This is relevant to my Amendment 262.
It is a very simple amendment and would require the Secretary of State to consult with young people by means of an advisory board consisting of people aged 25 and under when reviewing the effectiveness and proportionality of this legislation. This amendment is a practical delivery of some of the discussion we had earlier in this Committee when we were talking about including the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the Bill. There is a commonly repeated phrase, “Nothing about us without us”. It was popularised by disability activists in the 1990s, although in doing a little research for this I found that it originates in Latin in Poland in the 15th century. So it is an idea that has been around for a long while and is seen as a democratic standard. It is perhaps a variation of the old “No taxation without representation”.
This suggestion of an advisory board for the Secretary of State is because we know from the discussion earlier on the children’s rights amendments that globally one in three people online is a child under the age of 18. This comes to the point of the construction of your Lordships’ House. Most of us are a very long way removed in experiences and age—some of us further than others. The people in this Committee thinking about a 12 year-old online now are parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. I venture to say that it is very likely that the Secretary of State is at least a generation older than many of the people who will be affected by its provisions.
This reflects something that I also did on the Health and Care Bill. To introduce an advisory panel of young people reporting directly to the Secretary of State would ensure a direct voice for legislation that particularly affects young people. We know that under-18s across the UK do not have any role in elections to the other place, although 16 and 17 year-olds have a role in other elections in Wales and Scotland now. This is really a simple, clear, democratic step. I suspect the Minister might be inclined to say, “We are going to talk to charities and adults who represent children”. I suggest that what we really need here is a direct voice being fed in.
I want to reflect on a recent comment piece in the Guardian that made a very interesting argument: that there cannot be, now or in the future, any such thing as a digital native. Think of the experience of someone 15 or 20 years ago; yes, they already had the internet but it was a very different beast to what we have now. If we refer back to some of the earlier groups, we were starting to ask what an internet with widespread so-called generative artificial intelligence would look like. That is an internet which is very different from even the one that a 20 year-old is experiencing now.
It is absolutely crucial that we have that direct voice coming in from young people with experience of what it is like. They are an expert on what it is like to be a 12 year-old, a 15 year-old or a 20 year-old now, in a way that no one else can possibly be, so that is my amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this is the most miscellaneous of all the groups that we have had, so it has rightly been labelled as such—and the competition has been pretty strong. I want to come back to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, but first I want to deal with my Amendments 200 and 201 and to put on the record the arguments there.
Again, if I refer back to our joint report, we were strongly of the view—alongside the Communications and Digital Committee—that there should be a statutory requirement for regulators
“to cooperate and consult with one another”.
Although we welcomed the formation of the DRCF, it seemed to us that there should be a much firmer duty. I was pleased to hear the examples that my noble friend put forward of the kinds of co-operation that will be needed. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, clearly understands that, particularly in the area of fraud, it could be the FCA or ICO, and it could be Ofcom in terms in social media. There is a range of aspects to this—it could be the ASA.
These bodies need to co-operate. As my noble friend pointed out, they can apparently conflict; therefore, co-operating on the way that they advise those who are subject to regulation is rather important. It is not just about the members of the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum. Even the IWF and the ASA could be included in that, not to mention other regulators in this analogous space. That forum has rightly been labelled as “Digital”, and digital business is now all-pervasive and involves a huge number of regulatory aspects.
Although in this context Ofcom will have the most relevant powers and expertise, and many regulators will look to it for help in tackling online safety issues, effective public protection will be achieved through proper regulatory co-operation. Therefore, Ofcom should be empowered to co-operate with others to share information. As much as it can, Ofcom should be enabled to work with other regulators and share online safety information with them.
It has been very heartening to see the noble Lord, Lord Grade, in his place, even on a Thursday afternoon, and heartening how Ofcom has engaged throughout the passage of the Bill. We know the skills that it is bringing on board, and with those skills we want it to bring other regulators into its work. It seems that Ofcom is taking the lead on those algorithmic understanding skills, but we need Ofcom to have the duty to co-operate with the other regulators on this as well.
Strangely, in Clause 103 the Bill gives Ofcom the general ability to co-operate with overseas regulators, but it is largely silent on co-operation with UK regulators. Indeed, the Communications Act 2003 limits the UK regulators with which Ofcom can share information, excluding the ICO, for example, which is rather perverse in these circumstances. However, the Bill has a permissive approach to overseas regulators so, again, it should extend co-operation and information-sharing in respect of online safety to include regulators overseeing the offences in Schedule 7 that we have spent some time talking about today—the enforcement authorities, for instance, those responsible for enforcing the offences in relation to priority harms to children and priority offences regarding adults. Elsewhere in regulation, the Financial Conduct Authority may have a general duty to co-operate. The reverse may be true, so that duty of co-operation will need to work both ways.
As my noble friend Lord Allan said, Amendment 200, the skilled persons provision, is very straightforward. It is just to give the formal power to be able to use the expertise from a different regulator. It is a very well-known procedure to bring skilled persons into inquiries, which is exactly what is intended there.
Both amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, are rather miscellaneous too, but are not without merit, particularly Amendment 185A. Please note that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I 100% support the intention behind the amendment but wonder whether the Bill is the right vehicle for it. No doubt the Minister will answer regarding the scope and how practical it would be. I absolutely applaud the noble Lord for campaigning on this issue. It is extraordinarily important, because we have seen some tragic outcomes of these weapons being available for sale online.
Amendment 268AA, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is entirely different. Our Joint Committee heard evidence from Edleen John of the FA and Rio Ferdinand about abuse online. It was powerful stuff. I tend to agree with my noble friend. We have talked about user empowerment, the tools for it and, particularly in the context of violence against women and girls, the need for a way to be able to report that kind of abuse or other forms of content online. This is a candidate for that kind of treatment. While platforms obviously need to prevent illegal content and have systems to prevent it and so on, having assessed risk in the way that we have heard about previously, I do not believe that expecting the platforms to pick it up and report it, turning them into a sort of proto-enforcer, is the most effective way. We have to empower users. I absolutely share the objectives set out.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, when I brought an amendment to a police Bill, my local football club said to me that it was anticipating spending something like £100,000 a year trying to create and develop filters, which were commercially available, to stop its footballers being able to see the abuse that they were getting online. It did that for a very sensible commercial reason because those footballers’ performance was affected by the abuse they got. I want to know how the noble Lord sees this working if not by having some form of intervention that involves the platforms. Obviously, there is a commercial benefit to providers of filters et cetera, but it is quite hard for those who have been victims to see a way to make this useful to them without some external form of support.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I absolutely take what the noble Lord is saying, and I am not saying that the platforms do not have responsibility. Of course they do: the whole Bill is about the platforms taking responsibility with risk assessment, adhering to their terms of service, transparency about how those terms are operating, et cetera. It is purely on the question of whether they need to be reporting that content when it occurs. They have takedown responsibilities for illegal content or content that may be seen by children and so on, but it is about whether they have the duty to report to the police. It may seem a relatively narrow point, but it is quite important that we go with the framework. Many of us have said many times that we regret the absence of “legal but harmful” but, given where we are, we basically have to go with that architecture.
I very much enjoyed listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. There is no opportunity lost in the course of the Bill to talk about ChatGPT or GPT-4, and that was no exception. It means that we need to listen to how young people are responding to the way that this legislation operates. I am fully in favour of whatever mechanism it may be. It does not need to be statutory, but I very much hope that we do not treat this just as the end of the process but will see how the Bill works out and will listen and learn from experience, and particularly from young people who are particularly vulnerable to much of the content, and the way that the algorithms on social media work.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am so sorry. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, reminded me that his Amendments 202ZA and 210A, late entrants into the miscellaneous group, go very much with the grain that we are trying to get in within the area of encryption. We had quite a long debate about encryption on Clause 110. As ever, the noble Lord has rather cunningly produced something that I think will get us through the eye of the free speech needle. They are two very cunning amendments.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. Free expression, my Lords, not free speech.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
Yes, freedom of expression. That is right.
I will start where the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, finished, although I want to come back and cover other things. This is a very complicated group. I do not think we can do it quickly, as each issue is important and is worth trying to take forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, this has been miscellany, indeed. We must be making progress if we are picking up amendments such as these. I thank noble Lords who have spoken to the amendments and the issues covered in them.
I turn first to Amendment 185A brought to us by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, which seeks to add duties on online marketplaces to limit children’s access to the sale of knives, and proactively to identify and remove listings which appear to encourage the sale of knives for the purposes of violence or self-harm. Tackling knife crime is a priority for His Majesty’s Government; we are determined to crack down on this violent scourge, which is devastating our communities. I hope that he will forgive me for not drawing on the case he mentioned, as it is still sub judice. However, I certainly take the point he makes; we are all too aware of cases like it up and down the country. I received an email recently from Amanda and Stuart Stephens, whose son, Olly, was murdered by two boys, one of whom was armed with a knife. All these cases are very much in our minds as we debate the Bill.
Let me try to reassure them and the noble Lord as well as other Members of the Committee that the Bill, through its existing duties and other laws on the statute book, already achieves what the noble Lord seeks with his amendment. The sale of offensive weapons and of knives to people under the age of 18 are criminal offences. Any online retailer which directly sells these prohibited items can already be held criminally liable. Once in force, the Bill will ensure that technology platforms, including online marketplaces, prevent third parties from using their platform to sell offensive weapons or knives to people under the age of 18. The Bill lists both these offences as priority offences, meaning that user-to-user services, including online marketplaces, will have a statutory obligation proactively to prevent these offences taking place on their services.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt. The Minister has twice given a positive response, but he limited it to child sexual exploitation; he did not mention terrorism, which is in fact the bigger issue. Could he confirm that it is both?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, and as I say, I am happy to talk with the noble Lord about this in greater detail. Under the Bill, category 1 companies will have a new duty to safeguard all journalistic content on their platform, which includes citizen journalism. But I will have to take all these points forward with him in our further discussions.
My noble friend Lord Bethell is not here to move his Amendment 220D, which would allow Ofcom to designate online safety regulatory duties under this legislation to other bodies. We have previously discussed a similar issue relating to the Internet Watch Foundation, so I shall not repeat the points that we have already made.
On the amendments on supposedly gendered language in relation to Ofcom advisory committees in Clauses 139 and 155, I appreciate the intention to make it clear that a person of either sex should be able to perform the role of chairman. The Bill uses the term “chairman” to be consistent with the terminology in the Office of Communications Act 2002, and we are confident that this will have no bearing on Ofcom’s decision-making on who will chair the advisory committees that it must establish, just as, I am sure, the noble Lord’s Amendment 56 does not seek to be restrictive about who might be an “ombudsman”.
I appreciate the intention of Amendment 262 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It is indeed vital that the review reflects the experience of young people. Clause 159 provides for a review to be undertaken by the Secretary of State, and published and laid before Parliament, to assess the effectiveness of the regulatory framework. There is nothing in the existing legislation that would preclude seeking the views of young people either as part of an advisory group or in other ways. Moreover, the Secretary of State is required to consult Ofcom and other persons she considers appropriate. In relation to young people specifically, it may be that a number of different approaches will be effective—for example, consulting experts or representative groups on children’s experiences online. That could include people of all ages. The regulatory framework is designed to protect all users online, and it is right that we take into account the full spectrum of views from people who experience harms, whatever their age and background, through a consultation process that balances all their interests.
Amendment 268AA from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, relates to reporting requirements for online abuse and harassment, including where this is racially motivated—an issue we have discussed in Questions and particularly in relation to sport. His amendment would place an additional requirement on all service providers, even those not in scope of the Bill. The Bill’s scope extends only to user-to-user and search services. It has been designed in this way to tackle the risk of harm to users where it is highest. Bringing additional companies in scope would dilute the efforts of the legislation in this important regard.
Clauses 16 and 26 already require companies to set up systems and processes that allow users easily to report illegal content, including illegal online abuse and harassment. This amendment would therefore duplicate this existing requirement. It also seeks to create an additional requirement for companies to report illegal online abuse and harassment to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Bill does not place requirements on in-scope companies to report their investigations into crimes that occur online, other than child exploitation and abuse. This is because the Bill aims to prevent and reduce the proliferation of illegal material and the resulting harm it causes to so many. Additionally, Ofcom will be able to require companies to report on the incidence of illegal content on their platforms in its transparency reports, as well as the steps they are taking to tackle that content.
I hope that reassures the noble Lord that the Bill intends to address the problems he has outlined and those explored in the exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. With that, I hope that noble Lords will support the government amendments in this group and be satisfied not to press theirs at this point.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to the Minister’s response to both my amendments. He has gone some way to satisfying my concerns. I listened carefully to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and noble Lords on the Lib Dem Benches. I am obviously content to withdraw my amendment.
I do not quite agree with the Minister’s point about dilution on the last amendment—I see it as strengthening —but I accept that the amendments themselves slightly stretch the purport of this element of the legislation. I shall review the Minister’s comments and I suspect that I shall be satisfied with what he said.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits a provision about recouping OFCOM’s preparatory costs via fees under Part 6 of the Bill, because it is now intended to recoup all preparatory costs incurred before the fees regime is in operation via the charging of additional fees under Schedule 10 (see also the amendment to Schedule 10 in the Minister’s name).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to the clause introducing Schedule 10 (recovery of OFCOM’s initial costs). The amendment reflects the change to Schedule 10 proposed by the amendment of that Schedule in the Minister’s name.
(a) preparations for the exercise of their online safety functions, or(b) the exercise of their online safety functions;”Member’s explanatory statement
Schedule 10 enables OFCOM to charge additional fees to recover certain online safety costs which are met by the retention of receipts under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. This amendment extends the Schedule 10 regime to cover all costs incurred before the main fees regime under Part 6 of the Bill is in operation (as opposed to only covering preparatory costs incurred before the commencement of clause 79).
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
Member’s explanatory statement
There are some platforms which, whilst attracting small user numbers, are hubs for extreme hateful content and should be regulated as larger user-to-user services.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for their support. After a miscellaneous selection of amendments, we now come back to a group of quite tight amendments. Given the hour, those scheduling the groupings should be very pleased because for the first time we have done all the groups that we set out to do this afternoon. I do not want to tempt fate, but I think we will have a good debate before we head off for a little break from the Bill for a while.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 192A. There can be nothing more comfortable within the terms of parliamentary debate than to find oneself cossetted by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on one side and my noble friend Lord Stevenson on the other. I make no apology for repeating the thrust of the argument of the noble Baroness, but I will narrow the focus to matters that she hinted at which we need to think about in a particular way.
We have already debated suicide, self-harm and eating disorder content hosted by category 1 providers. There is a need for the Bill to do more here, particularly through strengthening the user empowerment duties in Clause 12 so that the safest option is the default. We have covered that ground. This amendment seeks to address the availability of this content on smaller services that will fall outside category 1, as the noble Baroness has said. The cut-off conditions under which services will be determined to fall within category 1 are still to be determined. We await further progress on that. However, there are medium-sized and small providers whose activities we need to look at. It is worth repeating—and I am aware that I am repeating—that these include suicide and eating disorder forums, whose main business is the sharing and discussion of methods and encouragement to engage in these practices. In other words, they are set up precisely to do that.
We know that that there are smaller platforms where users share detailed information about methods of suicide. One of these in particular has been highlighted by families and coroners as playing a role in the suicides of individuals in the UK. Regulation 28 reports—that is, an official request for action—have been issued to DCMS and DHSC by coroners to prevent future comparable deaths.
A recent systematic review, looking at the impact of suicide and self-harm-related videos and photographs, showed that potentially harmful content concentrated specifically on sites with low levels of moderation. Much of the material which promotes and glorifies this behaviour is unlikely to be criminalised through the Government’s proposed new offence of encouragement to serious self-harm. For example, we would not expect all material which provides explicit instructional information on how to take one’s life using novel and effective methods to be covered by it.
The content has real-world implications. There is clear evidence that when a particular suicide method becomes better known, the effect is not simply that suicidal people switch from one intended method to the novel one, but that suicides occur in people who would not otherwise have taken their own lives. There are, therefore, important public health reasons to minimise the discussion of dangerous and effective suicide methods.
The Bill’s pre-legislative scrutiny committee recommended that the legislation
“adopt a more nuanced approach, based not just on size and high-level functionality, but factors such as risk, reach, user base, safety performance, and business model”.
This amendment is in line with that recommendation, seeking to extend category 1 regulation to services that carry a high level of risk.
The previous Secretary of State appeared to accept this argument—but we have had a lot of Secretaries of State since—and announced a deferred power that would have allowed for the most dangerous forums to be regulated; but the removal of the “legal but harmful” provisions from the legislation means that this power is no longer applicable, as its function related to the “adult risk assessment” duty, which is no longer in the Bill.
This amendment would not shut down dangerous services, but it would make them accountable to Ofcom. It would require them to warn their users of what they were about to see, and it would require them to give users control over the type of content that they see. That is, the Government’s proposed triple shield would apply to them. We would expect that this increased regulatory burden on small platforms would make them more challenging to operate and less appealing to potential users, and would diminish their size and reach over time.
This amendment is entirely in line with the Government’s own approach to dangerous content. It simply seeks to extend the regulatory position that they themselves have arrived at to the very places where much of the most dangerous content resides. Amendment 192A is supported by the Mental Health Foundation, the Samaritans and others that we have been able to consult. It is similar to Amendment 192, which we also support, but this one specifies that the harmful material that Ofcom must take account of relates to self-harm, suicide and eating disorders. I would now be more than happy to give way—eventually, when he chooses to do it—to my noble friend Lord Stevenson, who is not expected at this moment to use the true and full extent of his abilities at being cunning.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I rise to offer support for all the amendments in this group, but I will speak principally to Amendment 192A, to which I have added my name and which the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, has just explained so clearly. It is unfortunate that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, cannot be in her place today. She always adds value in any debate, but on this issue in particular I know she would have made a very compelling case for this amendment. I will speak principally about eating disorders, because the issues of self-harm have already been covered and the hour is already late.
The Bill as it stands presumes a direct relationship between the size of a platform and its potential to cause harm. This is simply not the case: a systematic review which we heard mentioned confirmed what all users of the internet already know—that potentially harmful content is often and easily found on smaller, niche sites that will fall outside the scope of category 1. These sites are absolutely not hard to find—they come up on the first page of a Google search—and some hide in plain sight, masquerading, particularly in the case of eating disorder forums, as sources of support, solace or factual information when in fact they encourage and assist people towards dangerous practices. Without this amendment, those sites will continue spreading their harm and eating disorders will continue to have the highest mortality rate of all mental illnesses in the UK.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am a poor substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in terms of the substance of the issues covered by these amendments, but I am pleased that we have been able to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, on that. I will make a short contribution on the technology and the challenges of classification, because there are some important issues here that the amendments bring out.
We will be creating rules for categorising platforms. As I understand it, the rules will have a heavy emphasis on user numbers but will not be exclusively linked to user numbers. It would be helpful if the Minister could tease out a little more about how that will work. However, it is right even at this stage to consider the possibility that there will need to be exceptions to those rules and to have a mechanism in place for that.
We need to recognise that services can grow very quickly these days, and some of the highest-risk moments may be those when services have high growth but still very little revenue and infrastructure in place to look after their users. This is a problem generally with stepped models, where you have these great jumps; in a sense, a sliding scale would be more rational, so that responsibilities increase over time, but clearly from a practical view it is hard to do that, so we are going to end up with some kind of step model.
We also need to recognise that, from a technical point of view, it is becoming cheaper and easier to build new user-to-user services all the time. That has been the trend for years, but it is certainly the case now. If someone wants to create a service, they can rent the infrastructure from a number of providers rather than buying it, they can use a lot of code that is freely available—they do not need to write as much code as they used to—and they can promote their new service using all the existing social networks, so you can go from zero to significant user numbers in very quick time, and that is getting quicker all the time. I am interested to hear how the Minister expects such services to be regulated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, referred to niche platforms. There will be some that have no intention to comply, even if we categorise them as a 2B service. The letter will arrive from Ofcom and go in the bin. They will have no interest whatever. Some of the worst services will be like that. The advantage of us ensuring that we bring them into scope is that we can move through the enforcement process quickly and get to business disruption, blocking, or whatever we need to do to get them out of the UK market. Other niche services will be willing to come into line if they are told they are categorised as 2B but given a reasonable set of requirements. Some of Ofcom’s most valuable work might be precisely to work with them: services that are borderline but recognise that they want to have a viable business, and they do not have a viable business by breaking the law. We need to get hold of them and bring them into the net to be able to work with them.
Finally, there is another group which is very mainstream but in the growing phase and busy growing and not worrying about regulation. For that category of company, we need to work with them as they grow, and the critical thing is to get them early. I think the amendments would help Ofcom to be able get to them early—ideally, in partnership with other regulators, including the European Union, which is now regulating in a similar way under the Digital Services Act. If we can work with those companies as they come into 2B, then into category 1—in European speak, that is a VLOP, a very large online platform—and get them used to the idea that they will have VLOP and category 1 responsibilities before they get there, we can make a lot more progress. Then we can deliver what we are all trying to, which is a safer internet for people in the UK
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I shall speak very briefly at this hour, just to clarify as much as anything. It seems important to me that there is a distinction between small platforms and large platforms, but my view has never been that if you are small, you have no potential harms, any more than if you are large, you are harmful. The exception should be the rule. We have to be careful of arbitrary categorisation of “small”. We have to decide who is going to be treated as though they are a large category 1 platform. I keep saying but stress again: do not assume that everybody agrees what significant risk of harm or hateful content is. It is such highly disputed political territory outside the online world and this House that we must recognise that it is not so straightforward.
I am very sympathetic, by the way, to the speeches made about eating disorders and other issues. I see that very clearly, but other categories of speech are disputed and argued over—I have given loads of examples. We end up where it is assumed that the manifestoes of mass shooters appear on these sites, but if you read any of those manifestoes of mass shooters, they will often be quoting from mainstream journalists in mainstream newspapers, the Bible and a whole range of things. Just because they are on 4Chan, or wherever, is not necessarily the problem; it is much more complicated.
I ask the Minister, and the proposers of the amendment, to some extent: would it not be straightforwardly the case that if there is a worry about a particular small platform, it might be treated differently—
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I just want to react to the manifestos of mass shooters. While source material such the Bible is not in scope, I think the manifesto of a shooter is clear incitement to terrorism and any platform that is comfortable carrying that is problematic in my view, and I hope it would be in the noble Baroness’s view as well.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I was suggesting that we have a bigger problem than it appearing on a small site. It quotes from mainstream media, but it ends up being broadly disseminated and not because it is on a small site. I am not advocating that we all go round carrying the manifestos of mass shooters and legitimising them. I was more making the point that it can be complicated. Would not the solution be that you can make appeals that a small site is treated differently? That is the way we deal with harmful material in general and the way we have dealt with, for example, RT as press without compromising on press freedom. That is the kind of point I am trying to make.
I understand lots of concerns but I do not want us to get into a situation where we destroy the potential of all smaller platforms—many of them doing huge amounts of social good, part of civil society and all the rest of it—by treating them as though they are large platforms. They just will not have the resources to survive, that is all my point is.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am going to be extremely brief given the extremely compelling way that these amendments have been introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and contributed to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I thank her for her comments about my noble friend Lady Parminter. I am sure she would have wanted to be here and would have made a very valuable contribution as she did the other day on exactly this subject.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has illustrated, we have a very different view of risk across this Committee and we are back, in a sense, into that whole area of risk. I just wanted to say that I think we are again being brought back to the very wise words of the Joint Committee. It may sound like special pleading. We keep coming back to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I are the last people standing on a Thursday afternoon.
We took a lot of evidence in this particular area. We took the trouble to go to Brussels and had a very useful discussion with the Centre on Regulation in Europe and Dr Sally Broughton Micova. We heard a lot about interconnectedness between some of these smaller services and the impact in terms of amplification across other social media sites.
We heard in the UK from some of the larger services about their concerns about the activities of smaller services. You might say “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” but they were pretty convincing. We heard from HOPE not Hate, the Antisemitism Policy Trust and Stonewall, stressing the role of alternative services.
Of course, we know that these amendments today—some of them sponsored by the Mental Health Foundation, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said, and Samaritans—have a very important provenance. They recognise that these are big problems. I hope that the Minister will think strongly about this. The injunction from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, to consider how all this is going to work in practice is very important. I very much hope that when we come to consider how this works in practical terms that the Minister will think very seriously about the way in which risk is to the fore— the more nuanced approach that we suggested—and the whole way that profiling by Ofcom will apply. I think that is going to be extremely important as well. I do not think we have yet got to the right place in the Bill which deals with these risky sites. I very much hope that the Minister will consider this in the quite long period between now and when we next get together.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a good little debate with some excellent speeches, which I acknowledge. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I was looking at the Joint Committee’s report. I concluded that one of the first big issues we discussed was how complicated the categorisation seemed in relation to the task that was being set for Ofcom. We comforted ourselves with the thought that if you believe that this is basically a risk-assessment exercise and that all the work Ofcom will subsequently do is driven by its risk assessments and its constant reviewing of them, then the categorisation is bound to fall down because the risks will reveal the things that need to happen.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for helping us to reach our target for the first time in this Committee, especially to do so in a way which has given us a good debate on which to send us off into the Whitson Recess. I am off to the Isle of Skye, so I will make a special detour to Balmacara in honour of the noble Lord.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord does not believe anything that I say at this Dispatch Box, but I will send a postcard.
As noble Lords are by now well aware, all services in scope of the Bill, regardless of their size, will be required to take action against illegal content and all services likely to be accessed by children must put in place protections for children. Companies designated as category 1 providers have significant additional duties. These include the overarching transparency, accountability and freedom of expression duties, as well as duties on content of democratic importance, news publishers’ content, journalistic content and fraudulent advertising. It is right to put such duties only on the largest platforms with features enabling the greatest reach, as they have the most significant influence over public discourse online.
I turn first to Amendment 192 in the name of my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes and Amendment 192A from the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, which are designed to widen category 1 definitions to include services that pose a risk of harm, regardless of their number of users. Following removal of the legal but harmful provisions in another place, the Bill no longer includes the concept of risk of harm in Category 1 designation. As we set out, it would not be right for the Government to define what legal content it considers harmful to adults, and it follows that it would not be appropriate for the Government to categorise providers and to require them to carry out duties based on this definition.
In addition, requiring all companies to comply with the full range of Category 1 duties would pose a disproportionate burden on services which do not exert the same influence over public discourse online. I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, with regard to regulatory burden. There is a practical element to this as well. Services, particularly smaller ones, have finite resources. Imposing additional duties on them would divert them from complying with their illegal and child safety duties, which address the most serious online harms. We do not want to weaken their ability to tackle criminal activity or to protect children.
As we discussed in detail in a previous debate, the Bill tackles suicide and self-harm content in a number of ways. The most robust protections in the Bill are for children, while those for adults strike a balance between adults being protected from illegal content and given more choice over what legal content they see. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked why we do not start with the highest risk rather than thinking about the largest services, but we do. We start with the most severe harms—illegal activity and harm to children. We are focusing on the topics of greatest risk and then, for other categories, allowing adults to make decisions about the content with which they interact online.
A number of noble Lords referred to suicide websites and fora. We are concerned about the widespread availability of content online which promotes and advertises methods of suicide and self-harm, which can be easily accessed by young or vulnerable people. Under the Bill, where suicide and self-harm websites host user-generated content, they will be in scope of the legislation. These sites will need proactively to prevent users from being exposed to priority illegal content, including content which encourages or assists suicide under the terms of the Suicide Act 1961. Additionally, it is an offence under Section 4(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for a website to offer to sell controlled drugs to consumers in England and Wales. Posting advice on how to obtain such drugs in England and Wales is also likely to be an offence, regardless of where the person providing the advice is located.
The Bill also limits the availability of such content by placing illegal content duties on search services, including harmful content which affects children or where this content is shared on user-to-user services. This will play a key role in reducing traffic that directs people to websites which encourage or assist suicide, and reduce the likelihood of users encountering such content. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, asked about starvation. Encouraging people to starve themselves or not to take prescribed medication will be covered.
Amendment 194 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, seeks to ensure that Ofcom can designate companies as category 1, 2A or 2B on a provisional basis, when it considers that they are likely to meet the relevant thresholds. This would mean that the relevant duties can be applied to them, pending a full assessment by Ofcom. The Government recognise the concern highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, about the rapid pace of change in the technology sector and how that can make it challenging to keep the register of the largest and most influential services up to date. I assure noble Lords that the Bill addresses this with a duty which the Government introduced during the Bill’s recommittal in another place. This duty, at Clause 88, requires Ofcom proactively to identify and publish a list of companies which are close to category 1 thresholds. This will reduce any delays in Ofcom adding additional obligations on companies which grow rapidly, or which introduce new high-risk features. It will also ensure that the regime remains agile and adaptable to emerging threats.
Platforms with the largest reach and greatest influence over public discourse will be designated as category 1. The Bill sets out a clear process for determining category 1 providers, based on thresholds relating to these criteria, which will be set by the Secretary of State in secondary legislation. The process has been designed to ensure that it is transparent and evidence-based. We expect the main social media platforms and possibly some others to be designated as category 1 services, but we do not wish to prejudge the process set out above by indicating which specific services are likely to be designated, as I have set out on previous groups.
The amendment would enable Ofcom to place new duties on companies without due process. Under the approach that we take in the Bill, Ofcom can designate companies as belonging to each category based only on an objective assessment of evidence against thresholds approved by Parliament. The Government’s approach also provides greater certainty for companies, as is proposed in this amendment. We have heard concerns in previous debates about when companies will have the certainty of knowing their category designation. These amendments would introduce continuous uncertainty and subjectivity into the designation process and would give Ofcom significant discretion over which companies should be subject to which duties. That would create a very uncertain operating environment for businesses and could reduce the attractiveness of the UK as a place to do business.
I hope that explains why we are not taken by these amendments but, in the spirit of the Whitsun Recess, I will certainly think about them on the train as I head north. I am very happy to discuss them with noble Lords and others between now and our return.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, he did let slip that he was going on the sleeper, so I do not think that there will be much thinking going on—although I did not sleep a wink the last time I went, so I am sure that he will have plenty of time.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, will want to come in—but could he repeat that again? Risk assessment drives us, but the risk assessment for a company that will not be regarded as a category 1 provider because it does not meet categorisation thresholds means that, even though it is higher risk than perhaps even some of the category 1 companies, it will not be subject to the requirements to pick up the particular issues raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and their concerns for those issues, which are clearly social harms, will not really be considered on a par.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
In the response I gave, I said that we are making the risk assessment that the riskiest behaviour is illegal content and content which presents a harm to children. That is the assessment and the approach taken in the Bill. In relation to other content which is legal and for adults to choose how they encounter it, there are protections in the Bill to enforce terms of service and empower users to curate their own experience online, but that assessment is made by adult users within the law.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this short but important debate. As we heard, some issues relating to risk and harm have been returned to and will no doubt be again, and we note the impact of the absence of legal but harmful as a concept. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, was very sad that she could not be here this afternoon due to another engagement.
I will not keep the House much longer. I particularly noted the noble Baroness’s point that there should not be, and is not, a direct relationship between the size of the platform and its ability to cause harm. There is a balance to be struck between the regulatory burden placed on platforms versus the health and well-being of those who are using them. As I have said before, I am not sure that we have always got that particular balance right in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, was very constructive: it has to be a good thing if we are now beginning to think about the Bill’s implementation, although we have not quite reached the end and I do not want to prejudge any further stages, in the sense that we are now thinking about how this would work. Of course, he is right to say that some of these platforms have no intention of complying with these rules at all. Ofcom and the Government will have to work out what to do about that.
Ultimately, the Government of the day—whoever it might be—will want the powers to be able to say that a small platform is deeply harmful in terms of its content and reach. When the Bill has been passed, there will be pressure at some point in the future on a platform that is broadcasting or distributing or amplifying content that is deeply harmful. Although I will withdraw the amendment today, my noble friend’s offer of further conversations, and more detail on categorisation and of any review of the platforms as categorised as category 1, 2 and beyond, would be very helpful in due course. I beg leave to withdraw.
New Hospitals
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, I will repeat a Statement made today in another place on the new hospital programme. The Statement is as follows:
“As we celebrate 75 years of the NHS this summer, we must continue to set up its success for the 75 years to come. At the heart of this is our new hospital programme, the biggest hospital building programme in a generation, which will help us deliver on our manifesto commitment to build 40 new hospitals by 2030. Today, I can reconfirm to the House our commitment for 40 new hospitals to be built by 2030.
We made our manifesto commitment in 2019, and in 2020 we listed 40 schemes as part of the new hospital programme. Since we formally launched the schemes, we have learned more about the use of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, more commonly known as RAAC. RAAC is a lightweight form of concrete that, between the mid-1950s and the mid-1980s, was commonly used in the construction of a number of public buildings, including hospitals—often on roofs and occasionally in walls and floors.
We now know that RAAC has a limited lifespan, with difficult and dangerous consequences for the people who rely on or work in those hospitals. I know that this has caused considerable concern to colleagues in this House, to NHS staff in those hospitals and to constituents who are treated in them.
We remain committed to eradicating RAAC from the wider NHS estate. As part of the spending review allocation up to 2024-25, we allocated the affected trusts £685 million in immediate support, but in some cases we must go further. Seven hospitals in England were constructed, either wholly or in major part, with RAAC, and an independent assessment shows they are not safe to operate beyond 2030. Two of the hospitals are already part of the new hospitals programme, namely the West Suffolk Hospital and the James Paget University Hospital. The five remaining hospitals have submitted expressions of interest to join the programme but are not yet part of it. Those are Airedale General Hospital in Keighley, Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, Hinchingbrooke Hospital near Huntingdon, Mid Cheshire’s Leighton Hospital, and Frimley Park Hospital in Surrey.
We accept in full the independent assessment that these hospitals are not safe to operate beyond 2030. Today, I can confirm to the House that we will expand our new hospitals programme to include those five hospitals built with significant amounts of RAAC. Taken together with the two hospitals already in the programme, the seven RAAC hospitals will be rebuilt completely using a standardised design known as hospital 2.0, with the aim of completing all seven by 2030. I can confirm to the House today that these new hospitals will be fully funded.
I want to take a moment to thank all those who have campaigned so tirelessly for new hospitals to be built to replace the existing RAAC hospitals, including the Members for Keighley and for Shipley, who have championed Airedale vociferously; the right honourable Member for Surrey Heath, who campaigned so strongly for Frimley; the honourable Member for Huntingdon, who lobbied hard for Hinchingbrooke; the honourable and learned Member for Eddisbury and the honourable Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who led the campaign on Leighton Hospital; and the honourable Member for North West Norfolk, the honourable Member for North Norfolk, who is my PPS, and the right honourable Member for South West Norfolk, who all campaigned so assiduously for the hospital in King’s Lynn.
Taken together, the new hospitals programme represents a huge commitment to strengthening the NHS. Since 2020, we have committed to invest £3.7 billion by the financial year 2024-25, and we expect the total investment to now be more than £20 billion for the programme as a whole. Resolving the uncertainty over the RAAC hospitals, which today’s announcement achieves, in turn allows much-needed clarity for the rest of the new hospitals programme. The programme has already been divided into cohorts 1 to 4, with construction in cohort 1 already started. Cohort 1 contains eight schemes. Two hospitals are already open to patients, with the new Louisa Martindale Building at the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton due to open later this year. Work at Moorfields Eye Hospital is due to start imminently, having cleared its final business case.
Cohort 2 comprises 10 schemes. The following schemes will now be ready to proceed, in line with plans set out by the respective trusts: the National Rehabilitation Centre; Derriford emergency care hospital in Plymouth; Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital; Dorset County Hospital in Dorchester; and St Ann’s Hospital, Christchurch Hospital, the Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Poole Hospital, all of which are in Dorset. A further two schemes within cohort 2, Shotley Bridge Community Hospital and the women and children’s hospital in Cornwall, will also be approved to proceed, but in line with the standardised design elements we are promoting through hospital 2.0, on which I will set out further details in a moment. As such, with the uncertainty that surrounded the RAAC hospitals now addressed, all the cohort 2 schemes can proceed, and they will be fully funded.
The cohort 3 schemes include major hospital new builds at Sutton, Whipps Cross, Hillingdon, Watford, Harlow, Leeds and Leicester. Today’s announcement confirms that those schemes will now proceed and be fully funded. They will be constructed using the hospital 2.0 standardised approach. It is worth reminding the House of the merits of using that methodology. First, although longer will be taken on the initial design, rather than each scheme beginning to construct to its own bespoke design, the current approach has meant that the average time from design to completion of a major hospital has been around 11 and a half years. By embracing modern methods of construction, we will massively speed up the construction phase and, in addition, accelerate Treasury and other government assurance processes. There has been much debate to date on when hospitals start, but the more important issue is when schemes are completed. A standardised modular scheme has been shown to work in other sectors—for example, when building schools and prisons—and is widespread across the private sector.
Today’s announcement confirms that all cohort 3 schemes can now proceed. In turn, enabling works that had been held up due to the uncertainty about the RAAC hospitals can now progress. I pay tribute to the right honourable and honourable Members who have campaigned so strongly for the cohort 3 hospitals to proceed. They include the right honourable Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, the right honourable Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, the right honourable Member for Harlow, the right honourable Member for Epping Forest and the honourable Member for Hertford and Stortford. I know that not all of them can raise points during this Statement, but the latter three have championed Harlow and its case. The Member for Carshalton and Wallington, to name just one, has raised these issues.
Turning to the hospitals in cohort 4, two of the schemes—West Suffolk Hospital and James Paget University Hospital—are RAAC hospitals. As I touched on a moment ago, they have been confirmed as part of the seven RAAC hospitals. They will therefore be funded for completion by 2030. Four hospitals in cohort 4 remain on track for completion by 2030: Milton Keynes University Hospital, Kettering General Hospital, Musgrove Park Hospital in Taunton and Torbay Hospital. Again, I pay tribute to the Members for those constituencies, including the Members for Milton Keynes South, Milton Keynes North, Kettering, Taunton Deane and Torbay.
The remaining seven hospitals within that cohort will also proceed as part of the new hospitals programme. The work will start on those schemes over the next two years, but they will be part of a rolling programme where not all work will be completed by 2030. That is a reflection of the disruption that two years of the Covid pandemic caused, as well as the pressure from construction inflation.
Some work within cohort 4 will start next year. That includes a new surgical hub at Eastbourne, alongside the discharge lounge already under construction. We will discuss key worker accommodation on the site with the trust, as part of engagement with the local housing association. At Charing Cross Hospital in Hammersmith, work will begin on temporary ward capacity to enable the floor-by-floor refurbishment to proceed. In Nottingham, work will begin on a new surgical hub and three new operating theatres will begin as part of the wider redesign, taking forward the Ockenden report recommendations. In Lancashire, a new surgical hub will be opened at the Royal Preston Hospital, which is due to be completed this year. We will reconfigure services across two trusts. I am sure that one of those sites will be of interest to Mr Speaker, as it is expected to be near Chorley. We are in active discussion with the Royal Berkshire Hospital, given the problems with the existing site, which had already made a 2030 completion date very stretching. In addition, we are building three new mental health hospitals in Surrey and Borders, Derbyshire, and Merseyside.
Turning to Devon, I pay tribute to my honourable friend the Member for North Devon and my right honourable and learned friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, who have secured new community diagnostics centres at North Devon. The new discharge hub is near completion, and we will take forward discussions with the trust and the local housing association on key worker accommodation over the next two years, as the first part of the North Devon new hospital build. We will discuss the original refurbishment proposal alongside the new build hospital 2.0 option.
In summary, the cohort schemes will all proceed, but the commitment to completion by 2030 applies to the 40 schemes set out today, which meets our manifesto commitment to build 40 hospitals by 2030.
Finally, let me set out the merits of the hospital 2.0 approach. Building new hospitals this way has clear advantages. Construction experts estimate that, with modular design, the efficiency saving will be in the region of 25% per square foot. That is essential in addressing the pressures of construction inflation and unlocking the additional schemes that are being observed as a result of the RAAC announcement.
There is one key risk to today’s announcement: the plan announced by the party opposite. As we speed things up, it is determined to grind them to a halt. The plan it set out on Monday said,
‘as a first step, before we commit to any more money, we’d make an assessment of all NHS capital projects to make sure money is getting allocated efficiently’.
So the risk to these schemes is from those on the Benches opposite.
Today’s announcement confirms over £20 billion of investment for the NHS estate. It confirms that all seven RAAC hospitals, which NHS leaders have called on the Government to prioritise, will be prioritised, with complete rebuilds using modern methods of construction. It will allow all cohort 2 schemes to proceed once business cases have been agreed, and modular build will be used for two of the schemes. It gives trusts the certainty to begin enabling works on major schemes in cohort 3 and a package of early work for schemes in cohort 4, two of which will be accelerated as part of the RAAC programme.
In 2019 we committed to the biggest hospital building programme in a generation, and today we confirm the funding to build 40 hospitals by 2030. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for reading out the Statement. It has been clear for the last year that we would have to come to this moment of the Government finally admitting that achieving their 2019 manifesto pledge for 40 new hospitals by 2030, under the new hospitals programme, was never on the cards, and that reality would have to take over. The Government must face the reality of the timescales and the scale of the money needed to address the NHS’s crumbling estate, and the reality of needing to prioritise and address the urgent rebuild and major maintenance problems of existing hospitals throughout the country, which are seriously endangering patient safety and the public.
This morning, it was reported that the announcement of the Government’s realisation of not being able to keep their promise was delayed
“because of fears about a backlash from Tory MPs”.
Was that vital information kept from the public because of such fears? Can the Minister tell the House when the target was abandoned internally?
We know that NHS maintenance costs have more than doubled, from £4.7 billion in 2011-12 to £10.2 billion in 2021-22, and about the dire condition that many hospital buildings are in. For example, Leeds Teaching Hospitals saw over 100 raw sewage leaks last year, including faeces leaking into wards and patient rooms; Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was forced to suspend some services because of a rat infestation; and the hospital in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, is one of the most prominent hospitals that has had to be propped up with steel and timber supports to stop its dilapidated roof caving in.
Do the Government have an estimate of how much they expect NHS maintenance costs to continue to rise until 2030? Is there a full overall strategic plan for this and the now-reprioritised 40 new hospitals programme? If so, when will it be published? After government announcements on the programme, only in February described by the Minister opposite as “world-class” and capable of being exported “around the world”, we have become familiar with the idea that the hospitals were not new, that many were not even hospitals and that “new” could include repairs and redecoration.
The Nuffield Trust put the number of new hospitals in the Government’s original programme—meaning those that we would all recognise as new—as three, not 40. The National Audit Office called the programme unachievable, and NHS Providers estimated the real costs of building new hospitals as £20 billion, not the £3.7 billion allocated by the Government. Can the Minister commit to publishing the latest estimate that his department has made of the cost of the now-revised programme? Can he now say specifically which of the new hospitals in today’s Statement are being kicked into the long grass beyond 2030?
The slow progress being made was clearly evident last February when it emerged that only 10 of the projects even had planning permission. Just last week the BBC reported that building work is yet to start for 33 of the 40 projects promised. Will the Minister commit to coming back to the House with detailed implementation, timescales, costs and scope of what is now proposed? The fact is that the programme has been hit with delays and uncertainty for years, and the longer this goes on, the higher the costs soar and the less likely it becomes that they will ever be built. Most of the hospitals in the programme are still waiting to hear what their final budget will be, and none of the six that were supposed to be ready for 2025 has full planning permission or funding yet.
On the seven hospitals built with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC—the Government acknowledged in December the enormous concerns and safety implications and committed to eradicating this from the NHS estate. The Government have now officially recognised what we all knew—that these hospitals are not safe to operate beyond 2030. We welcome the news that they will all be completely rebuilt and the promise that this will be fully funded. Can the Minister tell the House the specific funding that is to be committed to the seven hospitals? Can he also tell the House when we are to receive the full details of the new, reprioritised plan so that it can be properly scrutinised and assessed by this House?
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, when I worked in business we had a maxim that we should always try to undercommit and overdeliver as a way of pleasing clients. It feels like the opposite is applying here, with the Government scrambling to show that they are not underdelivering on their overcommitment. Of course, 40 hospitals was a classic election promise, oversimplifying a much more complex need, with the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete hospitals being one of those such complications that emerged once they had turned over the aerated concrete block.
I do not expect the Minister to comment on the election promise, but I hope he can comment further on three aspects of the Government’s programme that he has set out. The first is the modular hospital design approach, which certainly seems a very smart way to proceed if it can provide more and better-quality hospital capacity at lower cost. Of course, any negative impact of failures in design will be multiplied if you are using a similar, consistent design. We should remember that RAAC was the future once, and public buildings were built according to that specification because it was seen to be cheaper and better back in the 1950s and 1960s. What assurances can Ministers give us that they will get it right this time and that the modular approach being used everywhere is the right one? By the way, on branding, 2.0 is now very 1.0, and it might be more appropriate to call it “the metahospital” or “Hospital.AI” these days.
The second is the planning process, which the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, raised. It does not matter if the modular design allows much quicker construction if everything is held up in seeking the relevant permissions to build the hospital in the first place. I would be interested to hear how many of the schemes have been given planning permission already and the extent to which the Government see planning as potentially a disruptor to their plans.
Finally, on the risks, if there are delays or cost overruns, which we hope there will not be—but inevitably one sees those with schemes of this kind—I look for assurances from the Minister that the contracts are written in such a way that any additional bills will not fall back on the taxpayer and, crucially, that if some schemes overrun or get into difficulties and incur extra costs, it will not mean that other schemes in the programme have to be cancelled as the overall budget runs short.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their comments. On a personal front, this is a project I have been working on directly. It is very close to my heart and is something that I am delighted to be able to put forward. I would like to mention a couple of hospitals that probably did not get quite the prominence they deserved in the earlier Statement, which happen to be quite close to my heart as well: the North Manchester General Hospital, which is one of the Cohort 3 hospitals. I have worked closely with Manchester City Council in the past on the redevelopments around Manchester Mayfield, and that is very much part of the plans. Also, being an ex-deputy leader of Westminster Council, I am excited by the plans around St Mary’s, where we are looking at a couple of alternative sites. That will be in conjunction with the plans for the refurbishments of Charing Cross and Hammersmith so we have got three hospitals in one. Just to clarify an earlier statement: the surgical hub is planned for Chorley and South Ribble Hospital rather than the Royal Preston Hospital.
I am not quite sure on the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, about the target being abandoned. What we were saying before was not that at all. We were saying we are positive about how it is progressing. To the point from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, about overpromising and underdelivering, I am sorry for the branding of the hospital 2.0 approach, and I take the blame for that. In terms of MMC, I was at one of the plants the other day, and it really is amazing the way its builds them and the speed with which they will go up. Many buildings have built like that for a long time. When I was up there, I saw them constructing the new Everton stadium, which is just one example. I believe that they will give the necessary speed we need for them all.
In terms of the funding, the estimate, as mentioned, is more than £20 billion. Each hospital has an indicative allocation. They are fully funded. We are not publishing them for obvious reasons: when you go out to tender, you do not want to tell the marketplace what you are expecting to pay. I hope noble Lords understand the reason for that. I am confident that the funding is in place. The hope in all of these things, as we have seen in the prison space and the schools space, is that if the first hospital costs £100 to build, the next one costs £95, the next one £90, the next one £85 as you get the economies of scale. So, you should be seeing 20% to 25% reductions, as you do a large production line. The benefit of all this is that there is such a mass volume of them all that you get the economies of scale. I genuinely hope that this will become the way we build hospitals for generations to come. It is very much cross-party, something that we all believe is a good way forward.
Some hospitals, as mentioned—as part of the timing and to try to make sure it all works in terms of the funding envelope—have been pushed into the 2030-35 bracket. They were mentioned in the Statement, and we have been speaking to them about that. They include Eastbourne, the Royal Berkshire, all the ones around St Mary’s with the complications there, Lancashire and Charing Cross to name just a few. In all those cases, they understand the reasons, and I think most people understand the need to prioritise the RAAC hospitals as a matter of absolute urgency.
On the questions about the planning process, we are on target. Obviously, you do not want to get planning permission too early, given the time it takes. In all the programmes I have seen, we do not yet have planning permission because we do not yet need it. I am confident that we are on track. We know that there are always X factors in these types of projects but, when you have so many, you want the flexibility to move some forward and some back, in a portfolio-type approach. That is well known when you are running as many projects as this.
At this stage, in all honesty I can say that we are as confident as we can be that we are on target to build them. Undoubtedly, there will be bumps in the road, and we are grown up enough to know that there are challenges, but I can say with a high degree of confidence that this really is the best approach. We will have world-class hospitals that will be state of the art, not only in their design but in their use of digital technology. A hospital today that is fully digitised costs 10% less per patient. With these hospitals, we should be looking at savings of 20% or more. That will really make a material difference to how we treat patients, increase productivity and be seen as the real way forward. I am very hopeful that the economics will become so compelling that this programme will not stop at 40 hospitals—in fact, 45, because of the extra ones we have brought in—and will become a rolling programme across the whole estate.
I am sure that we will have many more questions on this. As I say, it is my pet subject, as the priority lead, so I would be happy to talk about it in greater detail at a suitable juncture.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
Can the Minister say something about NHS maintenance costs, which I did ask about? I do not have the actual question in front of me, as my speech has just been taken away, but if he would like to write to me on that, it would be helpful.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, I will happily write. We are spending a record amount in capital. The current capital budget is about £12 billion, which is a 50% increase on 2019. Speaking of underpromising and overdelivering, believe it or not, we have been hiding our light under a bushel regarding the hospital upgrades. Just this morning I visited Frimley, one of the RAAC hospitals, and they said, “Oh, we’ve just had a new hospital at Ascot”. We have not called that a new hospital but they refer to it as such, and when you see it, it is a new building. It is not massive, but by most definitions it is a hospital.
I will happily provide that extra detail and information. We know that there is a lot to be done on maintenance, but we are putting more resources into it.